Re: Constitutional issues in the wake of Lenny
Kurt Roeckx <email@example.com> writes:
> On Sat, Mar 14, 2009 at 12:07:03PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> 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.
Yup, exactly, something that fit the last paragraph would be a position
Russ Allbery (firstname.lastname@example.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>