Re: Overriding vs Amending vs 'Position statement' [Was: Re: Constitutional issues in the wake of Lenny]
On Sat, 14 Mar 2009, Matthew Johnson wrote:
> On Sat Mar 14 14:23, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> > I'm currently inclined to interprete it so that anything that
> > seems to modify an interpretation will require an explicit change
> > in some document. But I'm not sure it's in my power to refuse
> > an option that doesn't do so. So that would be option 2 above.
> Yeah, this is what I think too, but Manoj got a lot of flack about it,
> hence why I want to make it explicit.
It depends what "some document" means. If it's a foundation document, then
it's all wrong for me. If it's some external document that explains how
we interpret the foundation documents, then it's ok.
Contribuez à Debian et gagnez un cahier de l'admin Debian Lenny :