At Wed, 01 Feb 2006 13:09:38 -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: > > Yavor Doganov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > On Wed, 01 Feb 2006 12:46:19 -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: > > > >> Which means that you are perhaps arguing that we should make the change to > >> the DFSG which the amendment in question calls for. > > > > I agree with this (e.g. that the Invariant sections are > > DFSG-compliant): > > > > http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2006/01/msg00240.html > > > > Since you and the Secretary (probably others as well) are interpeting > > the DFSG in a different way, perhaps it is a good idea to clarify that > > particular sentence, but it is not an obstacle for the current GR. > > I cannot fathom what you are saying, because you have so carefully > excised all the relevant context from the sentence of mine which you > quote.
Sorry about that, I thought I was doing a favour by shortening my reply. > But it sound sas if you are agreeing that the amendment is a change to > the DFSG, and so it is clear that it requires a 3:1 majority then. > Right? No, I think that Anton Zinoviev's amendment to the GR does *not* require a change to the DFSG. But as it is clear that DDs interpret the DFSG differently, I agree that a "clarification" to the DFSG #3 may be proposed at a later stage. This will require 3:1 majority, of course. -- Yavor Doganov -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
