On 2003-10-13, Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 04:03:15AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> ______________________________________________________________________
>>
>> Proposal C: Clarifies status of non-technical documents. Creates
>> Foundation Documents class which requires 3:1 majority to change and
>> includes _only_ the Social Contract, and *not* the DFSG.
>
> Int this case, what is the reason behind this. Is it because of the
> opinion that the DFSG is part of the Social Contract, or because it is
> felt that the DFSG is not a founding document, and that we may want to
> more easily change it.
>
> Maybe this would be made clear now, so, in case this is choosen, we
> don't have ambiguities later on.
Branden argued that the DFSG is an implementation of the ideas
expressed in the Social Contract, and that it's a more technical
document that should not need a supermajority to change.
Should the rationales be a little longer and include arguments like
this?
Peace,
Dylan
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
