On Wed, Dec 17 2008, Luk Claes wrote:
> Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> On Tue, Dec 16 2008, Matthew Woodcraft wrote:
>>> If the proposer of vote/2003/vote_0003 had intended it to give the
>>> Secretary power to impose supermajority requirements on the grounds
>>> that an option conflicts with a foundation document, one would have
>>> expected him to have said so explicitly.
>>
>> So, in your opinion, which decision making entity is empowered
>> by the constitution to make decisions about super majority
>> requirements? What are the constraints on their ability to decide on
>> this? What should they be looking at, apart from the constitution, to
>> decide whether a super majority rule should apply?
>
> I would think the explicit overriding or removal of parts of foundation
> documents aka changing them as I read it in the constitution (but
> apparently my interpretation differs from yours).
Parse error. Which entity did you mean? Or are you just
answering the last question? Does that mean we can just not follow the
foundation documents by doing something different, but just not saying
explicitly we are over riding them?
So, as long as we do not make the faux-paux of explicitly
amending a foundation document, we can change bits and pieces of it, as
much as we want? Seems like saying that we need a super majoruty to
change foundation documents is silly, since all we actually need is to
never say so explicitly.
I am not sure I am confortable with this "wink, wink, nudge
nudge" approach.
manoj
--
Lockwood's Long Shot: The chances of getting eaten up by a lion on Main
Street aren't one in a million, but once would be enough.
Manoj Srivastava <sriva...@debian.org> <http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
