* Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) [081217 06:57]: > Andreas Barth <a...@not.so.argh.org> writes: > > * Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) [081217 01:11]: > > >> 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 explicitly superseded or changed, not just for making a project 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. > > > I don't think that overriding can be done with 1:1-majority, but has the > > same requirements as changing. With the rest I however agree. > > Overriding the decision of a developer (which is what I was referring to) > does not have any supermajority requirement. Constitution 4.1.3.
I refered with "overriding" to "overriding a foundation document". Re "overriding a developer" I agree. Cheers, Andi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
