Re: Constitutional issues in the wake of Lenny
On Sat, Mar 14, 2009 at 12:07:03PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> 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
> >> 3:1.
> >> 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
Would that be a "position statement"? That only seems to have a
normal majority requirement.
The problem I have with position statements is that they're not
binding. But it atleast gives the secretary a consensus to base
decisions on for other votes.