On 28 Feb 2006, Oliver Elphick uttered the following:
On Tue, 2006-02-28 at 18:36 +0100, Thomas Viehmann wrote:
Hi,
That is meant as a statement of fact, not a personal attack. If
something is listed as a constitutional change it will certainly
bias against it those who dislike such
On 28 Feb 2006, Oliver Elphick outgrape:
On Sat, 2006-02-25 at 17:21 -0600, Debian Project Secretary wrote:
The following ballot is for voting on a General Resolution to
address the Debian project's position on the GNU Free Documentation
License. The vote is being conducted in accordance
On Sat, 2006-02-25 at 17:21 -0600, Debian Project Secretary wrote:
The following ballot is for voting on a General Resolution to address
the Debian project's position on the GNU Free Documentation License.
The vote is being conducted in accordance with the policy delineated
in Section A,
Oliver Elphick olly@lfix.co.uk writes:
If the Secretary's creative interpretation is allowed to stand, the
proper description of what is happening can only be that this proposal
adds a new foundation document.
As you (and some others) are only arguing about the 3:1 supermajority
requirement,
On Tue, 2006-02-28 at 13:24 +0200, Kalle Kivimaa wrote:
Oliver Elphick olly@lfix.co.uk writes:
If the Secretary's creative interpretation is allowed to stand, the
proper description of what is happening can only be that this proposal
adds a new foundation document.
As you (and some
On Tue, Feb 28, 2006 at 12:17:09PM +, Oliver Elphick wrote:
On Tue, 2006-02-28 at 13:24 +0200, Kalle Kivimaa wrote:
Oliver Elphick olly@lfix.co.uk writes:
If the Secretary's creative interpretation is allowed to stand, the
proper description of what is happening can only be that this
On Tue, 2006-02-28 at 14:59 +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
Bah, the clause 3 is trying to change the perceived meaning of the DFSG, as
such it is a change of the DFSG in spirit even if it would be doubtful that
it would mean a modification of the text of the DFSG.
As such, it is logical that it
On Tue, Feb 28, 2006 at 02:13:10PM +, Oliver Elphick wrote:
On Tue, 2006-02-28 at 14:59 +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
Bah, the clause 3 is trying to change the perceived meaning of the DFSG, as
such it is a change of the DFSG in spirit even if it would be doubtful that
it would mean a
On Tue, 2006-02-28 at 15:34 +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
Well, one could consider that changing the interpretation of a fundation
document is indeed changing it. This will establish a precedent which you can
see as an annotation of the DFSG, or whatever they say in legalese.
But in any case, it
Oliver Elphick olly@lfix.co.uk writes:
Nevertheless, no foundation document is actually being changed.
Therefore either this is a new foundation document, which requires a
change to the constitution, or it does not require a supermajority.
The clause being changed by choice number 3 is clause
On Tue, 2006-02-28 at 16:35 +0200, Kalle Kivimaa wrote:
Oliver Elphick olly@lfix.co.uk writes:
Nevertheless, no foundation document is actually being changed.
Therefore either this is a new foundation document, which requires a
change to the constitution, or it does not require a
Hi,
Oliver Elphick wrote:
I object to being asked to vote on a meaningless proposal. If I vote
for 3, am I voting for an amendment to DFSG, Social Contract or
Constitution? Which one of those? What exactly is the text of the
change? I am a good deal more reluctant to vote for a
On 2/28/06, Oliver Elphick olly@lfix.co.uk wrote:
On Sat, 2006-02-25 at 17:21 -0600, Debian Project Secretary wrote:
Majority Requirement
Amendment B requires a 3:1 majority, since it require
modifications to the Social contract, or the DFSG, both
foundation
On Tue, 2006-02-28 at 18:36 +0100, Thomas Viehmann wrote:
Hi,
Oliver Elphick wrote:
I object to being asked to vote on a meaningless proposal. If I vote
for 3, am I voting for an amendment to DFSG, Social Contract or
Constitution? Which one of those? What exactly is the text of the
On Tue, 2006-02-28 at 13:48 -0500, Raul Miller wrote: foundation
documents.
This makes no sense because the text of the modifications is not given.
I disagree.
Here are some definitions for modifications:
http://www.answers.com/modifications
And here's some definitions for the
On 2/28/06, Oliver Elphick olly@lfix.co.uk 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
Oliver Elphick wrote:
I don't object to Manoj's determining that this is a modification of a
fundamental document, but I think he should then require the text of the
amendment to be changed so as actually to accomplish what he deems it to
be doing.
Of course, he may -- possibly correctly --
Oliver Elphick olly@lfix.co.uk writes:
I object to being asked to vote on a meaningless proposal. If I vote
for 3, am I voting for an amendment to DFSG, Social Contract or
Constitution? Which one of those? What exactly is the text of the
change? I am a good deal more reluctant to vote for
On Tue, Feb 28, 2006 at 04:35:27PM +0200, Kalle Kivimaa wrote:
On a related topic, should the constitution define that overriding a
decision by the secretary conserning 7.1.3 requires a 3:1
supermajority? Currently it is entirely possible for a simple majority
of the developers to bypass the
19 matches
Mail list logo
