Re: First call for votes for the Lenny release GR
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> 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 explicitly superseded or changed, not just for making a project statement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.
Well, apparently not all DDs concur with that interpretation, though you
have the explicit power to interpete the constitution, so be it (these
DDs should probably explicitely propose something to maybe change the
constitution).
Cheers
Luk
Reply to: