Re: First call for votes for the Lenny release GR
* Russ Allbery (firstname.lastname@example.org) [081217 06:57]:
> Andreas Barth <email@example.com> writes:
> > * Russ Allbery (firstname.lastname@example.org) [081217 01:11]:
> >> 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 explicitly superseded or changed, not just for making a project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.
> > I don't think that overriding can be done with 1:1-majority, but has the
> > same requirements as changing. With the rest I however agree.
> Overriding the decision of a developer (which is what I was referring to)
> does not have any supermajority requirement. Constitution 4.1.3.
I refered with "overriding" to "overriding a foundation document". Re
"overriding a developer" I agree.