-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hi,
If my memory serves me correctly, Branden I decide that our
proposals should be on the same ballot; though there does remain some
difference in them. We think that there should be three options of
the ballot: (ordering of A and B was done by a coin toss)
a) Allow modification of non technical docments as long as certain
documents are recognized to be ``foundation'' documents, and
require the same super majority to modify that the amendments to
the constitution require (this is my proposal) [Full text below]
b) Allow non technical documents t be modified (without any provision
for special treatment for any document (this is branden's
proposal, stated far more informally and imprecisely than he did)
[Full text below]
c) further discussion.
For the record, I want to state that I do not consider my
proposal (a) to be a ``sperset'' or ``subset'' of branden's;
personally, I prefer c) to b) in the above list.
It should be noted that both proposals are proposed amendments
to the Project Constitution, and under the terms of 4.1.2 (quoted
below) will require a 3:1 supermajority to pass.
For context, here are the two proposals as last seen on this
list.
manoj
======================================================================
Proposal A: Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
======================================================================
4. The Developers by way of General Resolution or election
4.1. Powers
Together, the Developers may:
1. Appoint or recall the Project Leader.
2. Amend this constitution, provided they agree with a 3:1 majority.
3. Override any decision by the Project Leader or a Delegate.
4. Override any decision by the Technical Committee, provided they
agree with a 2:1 majority.
- - - 5. Issue nontechnical policy documents and statements.
- - - These include documents describing the goals of the project, its
- - - relationship with other free software entities, and nontechnical
- - - policies such as the free software licence terms that Debian
- - - software must meet.
- - - They may also include position statements about issues of the day.
+ 5. Issue, modify and withdraw nontechnical policy documents and statements.
+ These include documents describing the goals of the project, its
+ relationship with other free software entities, and nontechnical
+ policies such as the free software licence terms that Debian
+ software must meet.
+ They may also include position statements about issues of the day.
+ 5.1 A special clause applies to the documents labelled as
+ "Foundation Documents". These documents are those
+ that are deemed to be critical to the core of the project,
+ they tend to define what the project is, and lay the
+ foundations of its structure. The developers may
+ modify a foundation document provided they agree with a 3:1
+ majority.
- - -- + 5.2 Initially, the list of foundation Documents consists
+ of this document, The Debian Constitution, as well as the
+ documents known as the Debian GNU/Linux Social Contract and the
+ Debian Free Software Guidelines. The list of the documents
+ that are deemed to be "Foundation Documents" may be changed
+ by the developers provided they agree with a 3:1 majority.
6. Together with the Project Leader and SPI, make decisions about
property held in trust for purposes related to Debian. (See
s.9.1.)
______________________________________________________________________
Rationale: The clause being modified has been seen recently to be quite
ambiguous. Since the original wording appeared to be amenable to two
wildly different interpretations, this change adds clarifying language to
the constitution about _changing_ or withdrawing nontechnical documents.
Additionally, this also provides for the core, or Foundation, documents of
the project the same protection against hasty changes that the
constitution itself enjoys.
======================================================================
- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
======================================================================
Proposal B: Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
======================================================================
4. The Developers by way of General Resolution or election
4.1. Powers
Together, the Developers may:
1. Appoint or recall the Project Leader.
2. Amend this constitution, provided they agree with a 3:1 majority.
3. Override any decision by the Project Leader or a Delegate.
4. Override any decision by the Technical Committee, provided they
agree with a 2:1 majority.
- - 5. Issue nontechnical policy documents and statements.
+ 5. Issue, modify, and withdraw nontechnical policy documents and
+ statements.
These include documents describing the goals of the project, its
relationship with other free software entities, and nontechnical
policies such as the free software licence terms that Debian
software must meet.
They may also include position statements about issues of the day.
6. Together with the Project Leader and SPI, make decisions about
property held in trust for purposes related to Debian. (See
s.9.1.)
Rationale: The clause being modified has been seen recently to be quite
ambiguous. Since the original wording appeared to be amenable to two
wildly different interpretations, this change adds clarifying language to
the constitution about _changing_ or withdrawing nontechnical documents.
Furthermore, this amended proposal does not include any orthogonal issues
such as whether there exist any specific nontechnical documents that
should require unusual amendment procedures. I think such issues should
be decided on separately, since it is quite possible that reasonable
developers can feel that the above is a reasonable clarification of the
Constitution with such belief necessitating a particular position on the
issues of special nontechnical documents, their identity, or their
amendability.
======================================================================
- --
No one can feel as helpless as the owner of a sick goldfish.
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.4 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.5.5 and Gnu Privacy Guard <http://www.gnupg.org/>
iD8DBQE6Ca5yIbrau78kQkwRAVY8AJ4kLIS9I6HBiWreJpb1PQ4rlTtYZwCg+yaf
S35kaRz3So64BY8Z5+7j70w=
=C/pd
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
