Re: First call for votes for the Lenny release GR
On Wed, Dec 17 2008, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> 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.
A: the final form of the ballot, including the supermajority
requirements, is specified in the conbstitution. Also, resolving to do
something that overrides a foundation document, in whole or in part, is
equivalent to creating a ew version of the foundation document, and
adhereing to that. So any resolution, not explicitly stated to be a
non-binding position statement, which contravenes a foundation
document, is committing us to a course that requires us to override a
foundation document. I think the intent of the constitution would be
issue a new version, instead of allowing a 1:1 majority end run around
foundation documents.
I am fairly comfortable in the grounding in the constitution
powers bit.
manoj
--
Any given program, when running, is obsolete.
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> <http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Reply to: