On Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 03:03:42PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > On Sun, Nov 23 2008, Steve Langasek wrote:
> >> I think the only way to reconcile the constitution with the GR > >> is to have a 3:1 vote, and subsequently to modify the foundation > >> document. We can't just supersede a foundation document otherwise. > > The parsimonious approach here would be for the secretary to state that a > > given resolution is non-binding unless it includes a patch to the DFSG and > > passes with a 3:1 majority, instead of unilaterally deciding to rewrite the > > DFSG with text that has not been proposed and seconded as part of a > > resolution. > Sure. That is an option. I kinda like the constitution/bill of > rights variation, where we append the GR that passed with 3:1 to the > end of the foundation document, so that action can happen immediately, > and not wait until we get around to debating on the actual wording and > such. In the US, this happens when something has been *proposed* as a Constitutional amendment, which has not happened here. > Parsimony is nice, if minimality was the goal. It seems to me > that people just want something getting done more than just minimal > action. Sure, bypassing democratic processes is frequently the more expedient option. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]