Re: Constitutional issues in the wake of Lenny
Matthew Johnson <email@example.com> writes:
> 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,
I didn't say that it contradicts an FD. I think that in most cases where
this is an issue, whether it contradicts an FD is going to be a matter of
opinion. In some cases, the whole *point* of the GR is to express a
majority view that this interpretation does not contradict the FD.
> but doesn't modify it and the result of it is not binding? How has this
> improved the position before the vote?
It makes an advisory project statement about the project interpretation of
the FD. DDs can choose to follow that interpretation or not as they
choose in their own work, but I would expect that people who didn't have a
strong opinion would tend to follow the opinion of the majority in the
project as determined by the GR. But if a DD decides that they flatly
don't agree with that interpretation, the GR doesn't override them unless
someone proposes and passes another one with a 3:1 majority.
Does that make it clearer?
Russ Allbery (firstname.lastname@example.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>