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

Re: First call for votes for the Lenny release GR

On Mon, 05 Jan 2009, Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 03, 2009 at 01:52:01PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > Yes, because it's not a supersession of the Foundation Document; it's either
> > a position statement or an override of a decision by a delegate.
> If the GR proposal does not say that it is a nonbinding position statement or
> an override of a delegate decision, then, by your logic, it is neither of those.
> ("Your logic" here refers to your claim that a GR proposal does not involve the
> supersession of a foundation document unless the proposal specifically says
> so.)

Can we stop this absurd discussion/reasoning? There's a context behind all
this and discussing things while ignoring the context is useless.

Your lawerish-like interpretation of everything that happens in Debian
does not help us much, I fear.

BTW, the context is 4.1.5 in our constitution: "Issue, supersede and
withdraw nontechnical policy documents and statements."

So by default, we issue "policy documents" and "statements" (or position
statements). The special case is the modification of the foundation
document, and to meet that case, you have to be explicit about it. Exactly
like people are explicit when they decide to put on hold a delegate
decision (sample here:

And note that the recent "Release Lenny GR" was also overriding a delegate
decision (the RM decision to use "lenny-ignore" on some firmware related
bugs prompted the proposal of the GR) but the proposer did not invoke the
corresponding clause and Manoj did not decide that it was implicitely an
override of a delegate…

Raphaël Hertzog

Le best-seller français mis à jour pour Debian Etch :

Reply to: