Re: Overriding vs Amending vs Position statement
Matthew Johnson <mjj29@debian.org> writes:
> 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.
Hm. Section 4.1 lays out what GRs are for. Most of the classes of
binding GRs look rather distinct from each other to me. Binding GRs
are:
* Appoint or recall the Project Leader
* Make or override a DPL or delegate decision
* Make or override a tech-ctte decision (2:1)
* Modify foundation documents (3:1)
* Make decisions about property held in trust by Debian
* Appoint a secretary
I'd say that everything else is non-binding, specifically including
anything passed under point 5 that doesn't modify a foundation document.
Which of those categories a GR falls into is going to be wholly obvious
from the GR except the boundary between overriding a decision and
modifying a foundation document. That seems to be the interesting case,
and yeah, thinking about it for a moment, I can't see a clear way to
always distinguish between those cases.
So yes, this is a good point. I agree with you; we're going to need
someone to decide no matter what (unless we drop the supermajority
requirements entirely).
--
Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Reply to: