On Tue, 2006-02-28 at 14:59 +0100, Sven Luther wrote: > Bah, the clause 3 is trying to change the perceived meaning of the DFSG, as > such it is a change of the DFSG in spirit even if it would be doubtful that > it would mean a modification of the text of the DFSG. > > As such, it is logical that it needs a 3:1 super-majority.
Nevertheless, no foundation document is actually being changed. Therefore either this is a new foundation document, which requires a change to the constitution, or it does not require a supermajority. Legal texts cannot refer to vague waffle about the spirit of things; they need to be clear. If choice 3 gets a majority but not by 3:1, whose view of the legalities will prevail? -- Oliver Elphick olly@lfix.co.uk Isle of Wight http://www.lfix.co.uk/oliver GPG: 1024D/A54310EA 92C8 39E7 280E 3631 3F0E 1EC0 5664 7A2F A543 10EA ======================================== Do you want to know God? http://www.lfix.co.uk/knowing_god.html -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
