Re: First call for votes for the Lenny release GR
On Tue, Dec 16 2008, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> 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explicitly superseded or changed, not just for making a project statement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.
> And that's my interpretation too. I think the constitution is quite
> clear here.
Frankly, if you want a non-binding position statement you should
make that explicit; the developers resove via a general resolution
actions that go against a foundation document need the supermajority,
in my opinion.
"In order to form an immaculate member of a flock of sheep one must,
above all, be a sheep." Albert Einstein : Understanding the world
Manoj Srivastava <firstname.lastname@example.org> <http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C