[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Proposal - Deferment of Changes from GR 2004-003

On Tue, 1 Jun 2004 19:19:10 -0400, Raul Miller <moth@debian.org> 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
>>   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.

	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
>>   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.)
>> Ok?

> 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   <srivasta@debian.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

Reply to: