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

Re: Constitutional issues in the wake of Lenny

On Sat, Mar 14, 2009 at 09:45:58PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> 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
> statement.

I have no problem with considering the following to be position
- Firmware blobs are not a DFSG violation
- Allow releases with known DFSG violations

They are interpreting the DFSG/SC.

But these do not seem like a position statement to me:
- Allow Lenny to release with firmware blobs
- Allow Lenny to release with known DFSG violations

It does not say how to interprete the DFSG/SC, and both
seem to temporary override the Foundation Document.


Reply to: