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

Re: Constitutional issues in the wake of Lenny

As Luk says, tackling these one at a time is probably best. So, first up
is (bullets numbered so that I can refer to them):

On Mon Mar 02 00:23, Matthew Johnson wrote: 
> Overriding vs Amending vs 'Position statement'
> When a GR has an option which contradicts one of the foundation documents, but
> doesn't explicitly amend it; does this count as amending it? If it does not,
> then how is this reconciled with the fact that we have just agreed to do
> something which would contravene our own foundation documents?
> Positions (in no particular order):
> 	1 The supermajority is rubbish and we should drop it entirely, so it doesn't
> 	  matter what the difference is.
> 	2 Anything which overrides a FD implicitly modifies it to contain that
> 	  specific exception, even if it's not specified in the GR, so always needs
> 	  3:1.
> 	3 Actually, the Social Contract isn't binding per-se, individual delegates/
> 	  developers are aiming for it as a goal, but can interpret it as they see
> 	  fit.
> 	4 The DFSG doesn't automatically trump our users, we'll cope with DFSG
> 	  issues if it's needed for things to work.
> 	5 Single exceptions don't require supermajority, but permanent changes do

Currently it seems that people think we are either in option 2 or option
5, but I've heard views for the others. The goal of this discussion is
to amend the constitution to make it clear which option we want.

If we drop the super-majority completely (1) this renders options 2, 4,
and 5 moot. Option 3 renders everything moot.

I think we are (and should be) in 2, but please, please give me your

Matthew Johnson

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: