Re: First call for votes for the Lenny release GR
On Tue, 16 Dec 2008, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Steve Langasek <firstname.lastname@example.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 explicitly superseded or changed, not just for making a project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 ?
Le best-seller français mis à jour pour Debian Etch :