Re: Constitutional issues in the wake of Lenny
Matthew Johnson <email@example.com> writes:
> 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):
>> 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 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
>> 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
I'm not sure that I see my position in there, which is a combination of 2
and 3. The rule I would like to see is:
6 Anything which overrides a Foundation Document modifies it to contain
that expecific exception and must say so in the proposal before the
vote proceeds. Such overrides require a 3:1 majority.
A GR which explicitly states that it does not override a Foundation
Document but instead offers a project interpretation of that Foundation
Document does not modify the document and therefore does not require a
3:1 majority. This is true even if the Secretary disagrees with the
interpretation. However, such intepretations are not binding on the
In the event that it's unclear whether a particular GR falls into the
first group or the second group, the vote should not proceed until this
has been clarified in the GR.
Russ Allbery (firstname.lastname@example.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>