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

Re: Results for General Resolution: Lenny and resolving DFSG violations

On Mon, 2008-12-29 at 11:54 +1100, Ben Finney wrote:
> Some members do not agree that the supermajority-required ballot
> options actually required changes to the foundation documents, which
> is not a comment on how those people think supermajority requirements
> should be assigned.

> I can only conclude that we really do need to see a vote (as proposed
> earlier) on how the SC and DFSG should affect the Debian project. The
> outcome of that vote would help me, at least, to understand what the
> project thinks the relationship is between our actions and the
> foundation documents.

Well, the only way your first paragraph can make sense is if the second
is almost right.  If people think that the foundation documents can be
sidestepped by a mere majority vote, then they think that they simply
don't *really* apply, and so a decision not to follow them is not
tantamount to an amendment of them.  

But I disagree that we need a vote.  We already have the foundation
documents, and they already apply.  If people want to amend them into
mere suggestions (perhaps the way the Bush administration regarded US
law), they are welcome to suggest that vote.


Reply to: