Re: Constitutional issues in the wake of Lenny
On Sat, Mar 14, 2009 at 09:45:58PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> 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
> >> 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
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.