Steve Langasek <vor...@debian.org> writes: > On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 04:27:22PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> This is where I have a strong disagreement with Manoj and apparently >> with you. I don't think there's any justification in the constitution >> for requiring a developer statement about the project's sense of the >> meaning of the SC and the DFSG to have a 3:1 majority, or to make a >> developer override to enforce that sense of the meaning. >> Both the override and the statement about the meaning of the documents >> should require 1:1. 3:1 should only be required when the documents are >> explicitly superseded or changed, not just for making a project >> statement about their interpretation. > With the corollary, I think, that such 1:1 position statements are > non-binding; you can compel developers to a particular course of action > with a specific 1:1 vote, but you can't force developers to accept your > *interpretation* of the foundation documents that led to the override, > short of modifying the foundation document to include that > interpretation. But such modifications definitely shouldn't happen > without the express intent of the proposer. Yup, I agree with that. -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
