On Tue, Jun 01, 2004 at 06:22:09PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote: > In my opinion it's as this: > > - If a GR has normal majority, and does not conflict with a foundation > document, it's ok.
Until the vote is held, it's not reasonable to act on any specific outcome for the vote -- we can't know whether the winning option will receive a normal majority. We can't even know which option will win. > - If a GR has 3:1 majority and specifies to (possible) override a > foundation document, it's ok. And if the override is implicitly specified, but not explicitly specified, then what? > - Everything else will create noise on d-vote, and should therefore be > avoided. (This is no statement about such a GR being acceptable - > I'm just more happy to don't discuss it to every detail.) > > Ok? Even in the absence of any override, a "position of the day" has quite a bit of force -- it just needs to not explicitly conflict with any foundation documents. Ambiguities in documents give a fair degree of latitude. That said, I don't think that discussing what proposals which have not yet been voted on might mean is "noise". I think that if we had had more talk of the potential implications in discussion period for the last GR that we wouldn't have people wanting another GR to "fix the problem". -- Raul -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
