On Fri May 01 16:16, 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. I think that is somewhat of an orthogonal issue. I don't think anyone would disagree that the vote: We agree to ship the nvidia binary drivers in main conflicts with one of the foundation documents. At the moment, however, we could run that vote and since it doesn't explicitly modify one of the foundation documents, it would only require a simple majority. Now, if people think that a simple majority should be able to decide this, then fine, but drop the 3:1 requirement from the constitution. If the project thinks this _should_ require 3:1 then I would like that enshrined in the constitution so that Kurt doesn't have to resign over it as well, next time this comes up. If that is the case, then of course we also need to decide who makes that decision. you say "for the entire project"---surely a position statement conflicts with a FD or it doesn't, whole project or no. Matt -- Matthew Johnson
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature