On Fri Dec 19 08:58, Steve Langasek wrote: > On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 02:12:01PM +0000, Matthew Johnson wrote: > > On Fri Dec 19 14:24, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > > > > It is. Does the resolution say what the new version of the foundation > > > document will look like if it's accepted ? If yes, then it supersedes the > > > document. Otherwise it doesn't. > > > So, if someone proposes a GR saying "we will ship the binary NVidia > > drivers in main and make them the default so that people can use compiz" > > but doesn't say they are overriding the DFSG or provide the wdiff for it > > then that's fine and only needs 1:1 to pass? > > Yes, that's perfectly fine - and also non-binding, so the 80% of the DDs who > didn't vote, the 47% of the voters who voted against it, and the 2% of the > voters who didn't read before voting can ignore that position statement and > continue doing things just as they were before. So... you're saying there's no point at all in such a GR? The GR says "we will do X" but even after we pass it we still can't do X because it would contravene the SC or DFSG? How is that a useful thing at all? What's the point?
Matt -- Matthew Johnson
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
