Re: First call for votes for the Lenny release GR
Steve Langasek <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 04:27:22PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> 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 explicitly superseded or changed, not just for making a project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 the proposer.
Yup, I agree with that.
Russ Allbery (email@example.com) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>