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

Re: Constitutional issues in the wake of Lenny

On Sat Mar 14 19:40, Russ Allbery wrote:
> 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?

Well, what I'm thinking about is the whole reason we tend to have GRs
is because one DD flatly doesn't agree with an interpretation. In which
case, how has the GR helped the situation. For example, the Lenny
firmware GR, at least one of those options would fall into this
category, the proposer explicitly said they weren't amending an FD, so
it would just be a position statement, but then we've not actually
solved anything if it wins.

Maybe I just see GRs as a last resort where we really really need a
definitive answer. Certainly after we've gone through the whole process
I'd like all that effort to have resulted in a solution everyone has to

Issuing nebulous position statements is what we elect a DPL for, isn't
it (-;


Matthew Johnson

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: