On Sat May 02 19:36, Russ Allbery wrote: > I think the first option (that they need 3:1 to pass whether they're > explicit or not) just begs the question and therefore won't solve any of > our problems unless we also identify a specific body who decides what > does and does not modify foundation documents, which in practice is > identical to defining a body that states what the foundation documents > mean for all developers. In all cases this is required. In your case, it's needed to determine whether an option is binding or not. After all, if something does not conflict with a foundation document at all, passing it by simple majority is binding, whereas if it does conflict then it is not. To put it another way, who decides whether to demand the author chose between non-binding and 3:1, if they think it's not conflicting. Matt -- Matthew Johnson
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature