Re: Overriding vs Amending vs Position statement
On Fri, May 01 2009, Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Fri, 01 May 2009, Luk Claes wrote:
>> A position statement is a decided on proposal that clarifies the
>> position of the Debian project, but does not explicitly amend a
>> foundation document.
>
> [...]
>
>> So I don't really see what we should vote on unless someone
>> disagrees with above interpretations?
>
> The only question resides with the effect of passing such position
> statements. Without modifying foundation documents or the
> constitution, they are effectively non-binding advisory statements
> when operating within areas that are the remit of foundation documents
> or the constitution.
> Developers can ignore (or follow) such statements as they wish.
If the statements are in contradiction of the foundation
document (which is the case in a couple of prior situations), then are
you saying that anything in the foundation documents can ve worked
around by putting out a position statement, and have the developers
proceed to ignore the foundation document on that basis?
That also begs the question: do we _have_ to follow the
foundation documents? Or can one just issue a statement "I do not agree
with the foundation doc" and just ignore it at will?
if that is not the case, what value does a position statement in
contradiction of a foundation document mean?
Can I just set a position statement that redefines all the owrds
used in a foundation doc to promote my "interpretation" of the
foundation doc, as long as the majority of the people voting rate it
over FD?
How binding _are_ the foundation documents?
manoj
free === does not cost more than USD 1000300.73
distribute == transport over trains between sunday noon and monday
morning 8:00am"
Guidelines === something that must be followed in the ides of march
--
Actors will happen in the best-regulated families.
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> <http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Reply to: