On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 09:21:41PM +0000, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 27 2008, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
>
>
> > IMHO that's beside the point, even if the constitution isn't specific,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I know it's an 'or'.
> > delegates should not make invasive decision for the project where it's
> > not obviously following the consensus, or some previous discussion. This
> > is actually §8.3:
> >
> > 8.3. Procedure
> >
> > Delegates may make decisions as they see fit, but should attempt to
> > implement good technical decisions and/or follow consensus opinion.
>
> Delegates may make decisions as they see fit,. They should
> attempt to implement good technical decisions. Use the or
> alternative. The follow consensus opinion is an or.
[...]
> So, no constitutional violation here.There is no formal constitutional violation, I believe the spirit of the constitution on the other hand has been totally forgotten. I don't see what Joerg does as much a technical problem as a social one, and in that sense, you can't take the first alternative. But like I said, let's proceed with the GR, I don't mind, it's merely disappointing. -- ·O· Pierre Habouzit ··O [EMAIL PROTECTED] OOO http://www.madism.org
pgp3D8BfcuMEG.pgp
Description: PGP signature
