On Wed, Dec 17 2008, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> 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. A: the final form of the ballot, including the supermajority requirements, is specified in the conbstitution. Also, resolving to do something that overrides a foundation document, in whole or in part, is equivalent to creating a ew version of the foundation document, and adhereing to that. So any resolution, not explicitly stated to be a non-binding position statement, which contravenes a foundation document, is committing us to a course that requires us to override a foundation document. I think the intent of the constitution would be issue a new version, instead of allowing a 1:1 majority end run around foundation documents. I am fairly comfortable in the grounding in the constitution powers bit. manoj -- Any given program, when running, is obsolete. Manoj Srivastava <sriva...@debian.org> <http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/> 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org