On 2/28/06, Oliver Elphick <[email protected]> wrote: > > Put more bluntly: the constitution does not require that the text > > be editted for 3:1 supermajority requirement cases. > > Well, I am actually inhabiting the real world rather than the Debian > parallel universe!
I'd appreciate it if you limited yourself to saying stuff that's accurate. > An amendment to a document (in the real world) always implies a change > of text; that is how you can tell that it has changed. Sure -- if that option passes, the text of that option would be a foundation document. But that doesn't mean that the text of an existing foundation document is getting edited. -- Raul
