Re: Overriding vs Amending vs Position statement
On Fri, May 01 2009, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Fri, May 01, 2009 at 11:54:15PM +0100, Matthew Johnson wrote:
>> On Sat May 02 00:52, Luk Claes wrote:
>> > It would be a clear indication that the foundation document should get an
>> > update or that the postition statement should get dropped again.
>
>> I think Manoj's point is that if voting some option X (a position
>> statement in conflict with an FD) means that we have to vote to change
>> the FD or drop X, then why wasn't X a vote to change the FD in the first
>> place? Surely we don't need a vote just to then have another vote...
>
> No one has the authority to declare, a priori, for the entire project, that
> a given position statement is in conflict with a FD.
Does anyone have authority, a posteriori, to declare that any
given position statement is in contradiction of a foundation document?
Or is it only deliverable by a GR?
This will be interesting. So, in order to determine whether a
foundation document is being modified, we first ask the project, via a
GR, whether it is indeed a contradiction. _THEN_ we hold a vote, with
or without the 3:1 majority, based o the previous vote, to see if it
passes or not.
I think Joey Hess is right.
manoj
--
Program: Any assignment that cannot be completed with one telephone
call. Kelvin Throop III, "The Management Dictionary"
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: