On Fri Dec 19 16:03, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > On Fri, 19 Dec 2008, Matthew Johnson wrote: > > On Fri Dec 19 14:24, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > > > > > It is. Does the resolution say what the new version of the foundation > > > document will look like if it's accepted ? If yes, then it supersedes the > > > document. Otherwise it doesn't. > > > > So, if someone proposes a GR saying "we will ship the binary NVidia > > drivers in main and make them the default so that people can use compiz" > > but doesn't say they are overriding the DFSG or provide the wdiff for it > > then that's fine and only needs 1:1 to pass? > > Yes. > > But try it, you will see that it won't even get the required seconds to > start the vote. And if it does, it will largely fail anyway. Well, sure, I don't think it'll get seconds nor do I think it will pass, that wasn't the point. My point was that it is clearly lunacy to say that it's not a 3:1 option, it's _clearly_ in direct violation of a foundation document. Either it passes but we can't do it anyway because there's an immediate RC bug against it or it must de facto be superceeding a foundation document. > Either we trust the democracy or we don't. The 3:1 ratio is not here to > protect us from insanity, it's only a matter of making sure that we all > agree if we want to change the direction in which we're headed. Yes, and shipping the NVidia drivers in main would be such a change of direction, whether exact wording of the GR option claims to modify the DFSG or not. Matt -- Matthew Johnson
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature