Re: Proposal - Deferment of Changes from GR 2004-003
On Tue, Jun 01, 2004 at 06:22:09PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> In my opinion it's as this:
> - If a GR has normal majority, and does not conflict with a foundation
> document, it's ok.
Until the vote is held, it's not reasonable to act on any specific
outcome for the vote -- we can't know whether the winning option will
receive a normal majority. We can't even know which option will win.
> - If a GR has 3:1 majority and specifies to (possible) override a
> foundation document, it's ok.
And if the override is implicitly specified, but not explicitly specified,
> - Everything else will create noise on d-vote, and should therefore be
> avoided. (This is no statement about such a GR being acceptable -
> I'm just more happy to don't discuss it to every detail.)
Even in the absence of any override, a "position of the day" has quite
a bit of force -- it just needs to not explicitly conflict with any
foundation documents. Ambiguities in documents give a fair degree
That said, I don't think that discussing what proposals which have not
yet been voted on might mean is "noise". I think that if we had had more
talk of the potential implications in discussion period for the last GR
that we wouldn't have people wanting another GR to "fix the problem".