[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: First call for votes for the Lenny release GR

On Wed, Dec 17 2008, Steve McIntyre wrote:

> And other people are not comfortable with you claiming a power that is
> not grounded in the constitution: namely, the power to declare that a
> ballot option needs supermajority, even if it is not a motion to
> directly amend or supersede a foundation document. That's the problem
> here. Whether you think you *should* have that power is a different
> question, but many people are convinced you do not have it now.

        A: the final form of the ballot, including the supermajority
 requirements, is specified in the conbstitution. Also, resolving to do
 something that overrides a foundation document, in whole or in part, is
 equivalent to creating  a ew version of the foundation document, and
 adhereing to that. So any resolution, not  explicitly stated to be a
 non-binding position statement, which contravenes a foundation
 document, is committing us to a course that requires us to override a
 foundation document. I think the intent of the constitution would be
 issue a new version, instead of allowing a 1:1 majority end run around
 foundation documents.

        I am fairly comfortable in the grounding in the constitution
 powers bit.

Any given program, when running, is obsolete.
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> <http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/>  
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C

Reply to: