Re: Constitutional issues in the wake of Lenny
Matthew Johnson <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> 4. Option X is declared not to be in conflict with a foundation document (?)
> 5. Option X conflicts with a foundation document, but explicitly doesn't
> want to override the FD (?)
This is not a meaningful statement about a GR currently. In order for
this to be a meaningful statement, we would have to amend the constitution
to create a person who is responsible for determining that such a conflict
exists. Right now, there is no person who can make the above judgement,
so making it a distinct case isn't particularly useful.
> 6. Option X would appear that it might contradict an FD, but doesn't say
> which of 2-5 it is.
> My point of view would be that 3 requires 3:1, 4 does not and that votes
> of type 5 or 6 should not be allowed to run until they are clarified.
I agree with all of those statements except for 5, which I don't believe
exists. 5 is actually identical to 4 in our current system.
If, down the road, we create an officer responsible for ruling on
conflicts around Foundation Documents, then 5 could exist if the statement
in the GR was in conflict with their ruling.
Russ Allbery (email@example.com) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>