On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 09:29:06AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > On Mon, Nov 17 2008, Stephen Gran wrote:
> > This one time, at band camp, Josselin Mouette said: > >> Le lundi 17 novembre 2008 à 14:05 +0100, Peter Palfrader a écrit : > >> > This is not part of my GR as proposed and seconded. > >> The Secretary made it clear that if your proposal wins, the SC *will* be > >> amended. > > As has been pointed out elsewhere, the Secretary's job is to interpret > > the constitution, not the SC. I'm not convinced that the secretary can > > mandate that a GR changes the SC. > I think the only way to reconcile the constitution with the GR > is to have a 3:1 vote, and subsequently to modify the foundation > document. We can't just supersede a foundation document otherwise. The parsimonious approach here would be for the secretary to state that a given resolution is non-binding unless it includes a patch to the DFSG and passes with a 3:1 majority, instead of unilaterally deciding to rewrite the DFSG with text that has not been proposed and seconded as part of a resolution. -- 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]
