On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 05:12:03PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote: >On Wed, Dec 17 2008, Luk Claes wrote: >> >> I would think the explicit overriding or removal of parts of foundation >> documents aka changing them as I read it in the constitution (but >> apparently my interpretation differs from yours). > > Parse error. Which entity did you mean? Or are you just > answering the last question? Does that mean we can just not follow the > foundation documents by doing something different, but just not saying > explicitly we are over riding them? > > So, as long as we do not make the faux-paux of explicitly > amending a foundation document, we can change bits and pieces of it, as > much as we want? Seems like saying that we need a super majoruty to > change foundation documents is silly, since all we actually need is to > never say so explicitly. > > I am not sure I am confortable with this "wink, wink, nudge > nudge" approach.
And other people are not comfortable with you claiming a power that is not grounded in the constitution: namely, the power to declare that a ballot option needs supermajority, even if it is not a motion to directly amend or supersede a foundation document. That's the problem here. Whether you think you *should* have that power is a different question, but many people are convinced you do not have it now. -- Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK. [email protected] "...In the UNIX world, people tend to interpret `non-technical user' as meaning someone who's only ever written one device driver." -- Daniel Pead -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
