On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 01:12:27PM +0100, Matthew Johnson wrote:
> On Sun May 10 04:13, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > Hmm, I wouldn't second this in its present form because I don't see any
> > reason to change the supermajority requirement for amending the constitution
> > - I don't think anyone has e
On Sun May 10 18:34, Luk Claes wrote:
> > 3. Option X overrides a foundation document, possibly temporarily (?)
>
> Not possible. You can only override a decision and amending a foundation
> document is the previous option.
What would you call the vote to ship non-free software in etch? Because
t
Matthew Johnson wrote:
> On Sat May 02 00:32, Luk Claes wrote:
>> PS: There is a reason why I send the mail about the definitions of the
>> terms even if Kurt as well as you seem to ignore it.
>
> I posted a while back citing several types of vote option [0], with some
> examlpes. I'm maybe not
On Sun May 10 04:13, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Hmm, I wouldn't second this in its present form because I don't see any
> reason to change the supermajority requirement for amending the constitution
> - I don't think anyone has ever disputed the meaning of this requirement,
> and it's been there since
On Sat, May 02, 2009 at 12:32:26AM +0200, Luk Claes wrote:
>> Option 1 - No Supermajority
>> We do not believe that we should require anything more than a simple
>> majority for any changes to the constitution or foundation documents.
>>- replace Constitution 4.1 point 2 with "Amend this cons
5 matches
Mail list logo
