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

Re: Constitutional issues in the wake of Lenny

On Sat Mar 14 12:07, Russ Allbery wrote:
>    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
>    project.

What does it mean to vote for something that contradicts an FD, but
doesn't modify it and the result of it is not binding? How has this
improved the position before the vote?


Matthew Johnson

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: