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

Re: Constitutional issues in the wake of Lenny

Matthew Johnson <mjj29@debian.org> 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
>>   3:1.
>> 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

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 (rra@debian.org)               <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>

Reply to: