Matthew Johnson <mj...@debian.org> writes: > 4. Option X is declared not to be in conflict with a foundation document (?) > 5. Option X conflicts with a foundation document, but explicitly doesn't > want to override the FD (?)
This is not a meaningful statement about a GR currently. In order for this to be a meaningful statement, we would have to amend the constitution to create a person who is responsible for determining that such a conflict exists. Right now, there is no person who can make the above judgement, so making it a distinct case isn't particularly useful. > 6. Option X would appear that it might contradict an FD, but doesn't say > which of 2-5 it is. > My point of view would be that 3 requires 3:1, 4 does not and that votes > of type 5 or 6 should not be allowed to run until they are clarified. I agree with all of those statements except for 5, which I don't believe exists. 5 is actually identical to 4 in our current system. If, down the road, we create an officer responsible for ruling on conflicts around Foundation Documents, then 5 could exist if the statement in the GR was in conflict with their ruling. -- 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
