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

Re: Constitutional issues in the wake of Lenny

Kurt Roeckx <kurt@roeckx.be> 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
>>    project.

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

Reply to: