On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 04:16:43PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: > But more fundamentally it doesn't matter. Combining things that were > proposed separately seems to be clearly overreaching the authority of the > Secretary, as there's nothing in "Standard Resolution Procedures" which > allows this to be done. IMO A.1.1 allows this, and A.3.4 of course means that the secretary's opinion on this is the "correct" one. > >> Option 1 is either meaningless or an override of a delegate decision, > >> but the ballot doesn't reflect this. > > > > It is a statement that a delegate decision is unconstitutional. > > No, it's not. It says nothing at all about a delegate decision violating > either the constitution or the DFSG. The wording of choice one is a > delegate decision override, not a statement about what is and is not in > the consitution or the DFSG, except that it doesn't even mention there > *was* a delegate decision. I agree that the wording of several options, including 1 and 5, is very vague. I assumed that it was clear that ignoring a DFSG violation for a release is in itself a violation of the DFSG. This view is appearantly not shared by everyone. Without that assumption, I agree that option 1 is only an override of a delegate's decision. (This makes some other stuff irrelevant, so I cut it out.) About ignoring the DFSG: > > (Note that the constitution doesn't allow them to.) > > Please show me exactly where it says that. Huh? Should the foundation documents say that they can't be ignored? Thanks, Bas -- I encourage people to send encrypted e-mail (see http://www.gnupg.org). If you have problems reading my e-mail, use a better reader. Please send the central message of e-mails as plain text in the message body, not as HTML and definitely not as MS Word. Please do not use the MS Word format for attachments either. For more information, see http://a82-93-13-222.adsl.xs4all.nl/e-mail.html
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature