Re: Position statements short of a GR - DPL statements

[Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk>]

Kurt Roeckx writes ("Re: Position statements short of a GR - DPL statements"):
> On Tue, Jan 08, 2013 at 04:24:16PM +0000, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > If in your view formal statements from the DPL are not permitted, can
> > you please comment on which of the following prospective web pages
> > setting out position statements are permitted and which are also
> > unconstitutional ?
> 
> I think it all depends on what the statement says, and how it
> can be interpreted.
> 
> For instance, if we end up with a policy on how to deal with
> incomming trademarks I think that would fall under 4.1.5
> and would need a GR.  But you could also interprete is as just
> a decision of the DPL, and I guess it all comes down on how
> you write it down.

I imagine the document would provide a set of recommendations for
maintainers, sponsors, ftpmasters, and so forth.  Obviously it
couldn't make any final decisions because it wouldn't deal with
specific cases.

But from a constitutional point of view I think it is be anomalous
that there is any doubt about anyone's ability to write non-binding
position statements on any matter.  I guess I'll have to try to fix
this along with the other three or four bugs which I have in my queue
along with the TC supermajority bug.

Ian.