On Tue, 26 Sep 2000, you wrote: > On Mon, Sep 25, 2000 at 12:22:58PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote: > > 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. > > > > By declaring that the Social Contract modification does not meet the > > criteria for a GR, and thus fails the ยง4.1(5) test, he is saying that > > it is not a document describing the goals of the project, nor does it > > describe its relationship with other free software entities, nor does > > it describe nontechnical policies. Clearly all three of these > > assertions are false. Only one need be true for the modification to > > be legal as a GR. Any reasonable person can see that clearly the > > Social Contract, BY ITS VERY NATURE, is in fact a document that > > defines Debian's relationship with other free software entities and > > describes the goals of the project! To claim otherwise is ludicrous. > > Indeed, the Social Contract is "a document that defines Debian's relationship > with other free software entitites and describes the goals of the project." > However, the above quoted section does not refer to the modification > of existing documents or revoking existing documents, only to the issuing > of documents.
What exactly prevents an existing document to be re-issued?
