Re: First call for votes for the Lenny release GR
On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 04:27:22PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > That does seem rather strange, since 3:1 would be required (IMO at
> > least) to explicitly decide that it is allowed.
> 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 explicitly superseded or changed, not just for making a project statement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.
> (Just to be clear, in this parcticular case, I continue to believe that
> changing the text of the SC and/or DFSG is superior to issuing a project
> statement about their interpretation, since doing the former is going to
> be much more conclusive and long-lasting and will avoid, hopefully, doing
> this again for squeeze.
100% agreement.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/
slangasek@ubuntu.com vorlon@debian.org
Reply to: