-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hi,
I'm not clear on how much of Manoj's proposal I have to include in my message seconding it, so I've included almost the entire post. Anyway, I second this proposal. Matthew Vernon Manoj wrote: > Hi, > > Indeed, I had proposed this in -project on the 19th of > July. This addresses the same ambiguity that Brandon does in his > proposal, but in a distincly different fashion. I would suggest that > this should be offered as an alternative to Brandon's proposal, if it > comes to a vote (if the rules lawyers deem that permissible). If not, > this may stand on its own (leaving open the possibility that both, > almost opposite, amendments may be accepted). > > I am now looking for seconds for this proposal. > > > ====================================================================== > 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. > ====================================================================== - -- "At least you know where you are with Microsoft." "True. I just wish I'd brought a paddle." http://www.debian.org -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3ia Charset: noconv Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.5.5, an Emacs/PGP interface iQCVAwUBOeMV0LDSad4X89TRAQFTKAQAuY4c41wV127C73yvava0Q/DEvYxUzk6z wFS4lRz4Z0f4LquOMzBQSRF4nZ2jASEVQwzOBEnLVPr6davALAjvn5OSPXAZTHIx KXeGYE15EOmE4BzWdc2ECTz6UwkdK6lXZF58My87CJotvKj2cpi3rXBpJzWH2IvE bjcAFXIelbc= =/wBD -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
