On Tue, 2006-02-28 at 15:34 +0100, Sven Luther wrote: > Well, one could consider that changing the interpretation of a fundation > document is indeed changing it. This will establish a precedent which you can > see as an annotation of the DFSG, or whatever they say in legalese. > > But in any case, it is without doubt that it will change the spirit of the > DFSG, and as thus needs a 3:1 super-majority.
If we grant, for the sake of argument, that the secretary is entitled to make such a ruling, he needs to insist that the wording of Amendment B (choice 3) be changed to add the rest of the amendment as a third foundation document. He should not produce a procedural mess such as this! -- 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]
