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

Re: Constitutional issues in the wake of Lenny

On Sun, Mar 15, 2009 at 08:49:51AM +0000, Matthew Johnson wrote:
> 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.

In the case of the GR before lenny it would clearly have solved the
problem. If any of the options which supported the actions of the
release team wins (as it was the case), then the release team would have
had the explicit support of the project for it's decisions. The GR would
be a sign that the majority of the project agrees with the release teams
interpretation of the FDs without forcing anyone to accept this
interpretation for his own work. The position statement would have the
sole effect, that it is no longer possible to enforce a diverging
interpretation upon others (as was tried with the pre lenny GR).

Personally I think that we should drop the supermajority requirements
alltogether. This would solve all the ambiguities. IMHO supermajority
requirements are a bit odd in our Condorcet voting system. 


Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter.
Try again. Fail again. Fail better.
~ Samuel Beckett ~

Reply to: