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 ever disputed the meaning of this requirement, > > and it's been there since well before the Foundation Documents supermajority > > requirement was instituted. But I would strongly consider seconding (as one > > option among many) a proposal to remove the 3:1 supermajority requirement > > for amending Foundation Documents, because I think the most recent fiasco > > has given cause to reevaluate the reasons we required a supermajority in the > > first place.
> Yes, I was wondering if that was a good idea. > Do you want to draft that? If one of the other options gets enough seconds to become a formal GR proposal, I would consider drafting a suitable amendment. I'm not going to spend the time on it when there isn't yet a GR on the table. -- 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]
