Re: First call for votes for the Lenny release GR
On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 04:56:47PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
>Ean Schuessler <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
>> ----- "Steve McIntyre" <email@example.com> wrote:
>>>> Both the override and the statement about the meaning of the documents
>>>> should require 1:1. 3:1 should only be required when the documents
>>>> are explicitly superseded or changed, not just for making a project
>>>> statement about their interpretation.
>>> And that's my interpretation too. I think the constitution is quite
>>> clear here.
>> If the new interpretation alters the meaning of the document then the
>> operation is functionally identical.
>Making a project statement about what the document means by definition
>doesn't alter anything except possibly the previous project sense of the
>meaning, which should *never* have been subject to a 3:1 majority
>This is the way the decision-making process in the constitution works, so
>far as I can tell. Maybe you would like to amend the constitution?
>If you do so, you need to add to the constitution some statement about who
>decides what the foundation documents mean in the context of developer
>decisions, since right now the constititution does not give that authority
>to anyone and hence it devolves to the individual developers doing their
>work, as possibly overridden by a delegate decision or a GR (none of which
>require a 3:1 majority).
>I understand why you might want the decision-making process that you're
>arguing for, but it isn't the one that we have right now, and saying that
>you want it doesn't put it into effect.
Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK. firstname.lastname@example.org
Into the distance, a ribbon of black
Stretched to the point of no turning back