Re: First call for votes for the Lenny release GR
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 17 2008, Luk Claes wrote:
>> Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>>> On Tue, Dec 16 2008, Matthew Woodcraft wrote:
>>>> If the proposer of vote/2003/vote_0003 had intended it to give the
>>>> Secretary power to impose supermajority requirements on the grounds
>>>> that an option conflicts with a foundation document, one would have
>>>> expected him to have said so explicitly.
>>> So, in your opinion, which decision making entity is empowered
>>> by the constitution to make decisions about super majority
>>> requirements? What are the constraints on their ability to decide on
>>> this? What should they be looking at, apart from the constitution, to
>>> decide whether a super majority rule should apply?
>> 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?
Nope, position statements are more like statements telling how to
interprete foundation documents, noone is trying to change them.