Re: First call for votes for the Lenny release GR

[Steve McIntyre <steve@einval.com>]

On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 05:12:03PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>On Wed, Dec 17 2008, Luk Claes wrote:
>>
>> I would think the explicit overriding or removal of parts of foundation
>> documents aka changing them as I read it in the constitution (but
>> apparently my interpretation differs from yours).
>
>        Parse error. Which entity did you mean? Or are you just
> answering the last question? Does that mean we can just not follow the
> foundation documents by doing something different, but just not saying
> explicitly we are over riding them?
>
>        So, as long as we do not make the faux-paux of explicitly
> amending a foundation document, we can change bits and pieces of it, as
> much as we want? Seems like saying that we need a super majoruty to
> change foundation documents is silly, since all we actually need is to
> never say so explicitly.
>
>        I am not sure I am confortable with this "wink, wink, nudge
> nudge" approach.

And other people are not comfortable with you claiming a power that is
not grounded in the constitution: namely, the power to declare that a
ballot option needs supermajority, even if it is not a motion to
directly amend or supersede a foundation document. That's the problem
here. Whether you think you *should* have that power is a different
question, but many people are convinced you do not have it now.

-- 
Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK.                                steve@einval.com
"...In the UNIX world, people tend to interpret `non-technical user'
 as meaning someone who's only ever written one device driver." -- Daniel Pead