Re: First call for votes for the Lenny release GR
On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 04:27:22PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > That does seem rather strange, since 3:1 would be required (IMO at
> > least) to explicitly decide that it is allowed.
> This is where I have a strong disagreement with Manoj and apparently with
> you. I don't think there's any justification in the constitution for
> requiring a developer statement about the project's sense of the meaning
> of the SC and the DFSG to have a 3:1 majority, or to make a developer
> override to enforce that sense of the meaning.
> 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 explicitly superseded or changed, not just for making a project statement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.
With the corollary, I think, that such 1:1 position statements are
non-binding; you can compel developers to a particular course of action with
a specific 1:1 vote, but you can't force developers to accept your
*interpretation* of the foundation documents that led to the override, short
of modifying the foundation document to include that interpretation. But
such modifications definitely shouldn't happen without the express intent of
> (Just to be clear, in this parcticular case, I continue to believe that
> changing the text of the SC and/or DFSG is superior to issuing a project
> statement about their interpretation, since doing the former is going to
> be much more conclusive and long-lasting and will avoid, hopefully, doing
> this again for squeeze.
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/