Re: Proposal - Deferment of Changes from GR 2004-003
On Tue, 1 Jun 2004 19:19:10 -0400, Raul Miller <email@example.com> said:
> 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
>> 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.
Quite. But some options are marked as having majority
requirements, I think it is reasonable to expect that any option that
could overrule a foundation document be required to state that
majority requirement up front.
>> - 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, then what?
I think that is a grey area, and would much rather not go
there. Let us specify the intent up front, can't we?
>> - Everything else will create noise on d-vote, and should therefore
>> 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 of latitude.
I have no problem with this.
If you keep your mind sufficiently open, people will throw a lot of
rubbish into it. William Orton
Manoj Srivastava <firstname.lastname@example.org> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C