On Tue, 16 Dec 2008, Russ Allbery wrote: > 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 explicitly superseded or changed, not just for making a project 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.
Not sure it's needed but I also share this opinion/interpretation of the constitution. I'm glad that I'm not alone here and that we might have some basis to avoid a constitutional crisis. How do we get back to a saner situation now ? Cheers, -- Raphaël Hertzog Le best-seller français mis à jour pour Debian Etch : http://www.ouaza.com/livre/admin-debian/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
