On Sun, Sep 04, 2022 at 08:00:48PM -0500, Richard Laager wrote: > > Thus, a possible precursor to an interpretive GR is that some person/group > (e.g. ftpmaster, Project Leader, TC, Secretary[1]) makes the interpretive > decision. > > If someone can make the decision, then they can be overruled[2][3] by the > Developers through a GR. I don't think a blanket prohibition on Foundation > Document-interpreting GRs makes sense in that context. It doesn't seem > correct that Developers somehow lose their power to overrule if the issue > involves interpretation of a Foundation Document.
You can argue that the developers making the installer and live images, and those maintaining the website can make those decisions. You can even say that they have made decisions. So those options could be seen as overriding a Developer, using the power of the Technical Committee. Assuming we actually went that way, 6.1.4 requires a 3:1 majority, but 4.1.4 only a 2:1 majority. I think we take the highest majority requirement in that case, so 3:1. > [1] I understand that your (the Secretary's) current position is that you do > not have the power to interpret Foundation Documents. I contend that you > implicitly do, at least insofar as such an interpretation is required to > fulfill one of your explicit duties. If you do not, then it seems the > Project Leader would, through a combination of 5.1.3 (requires urgent > action) and/or 5.1.4 (noone else has responsibility). As part of this GR, I'm just trying to make sure you can interpret the SC in a consistent way that matches the ballot option. Thank you for discussion this, I wish more people would participate in this. Kurt
