[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Overriding vs Amending vs Position statement



On Sun May 03 01:14, Russ Allbery wrote:
> 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.

Really? I don't see anything which says they are non-binding, but I do
see 2.1.1: "Nothing in this constitution imposes an obligation on anyone
to do work for the Project. A person who does not want to do a task
which has been delegated or assigned to them does not need to do it.
However, they must not actively work against these rules and decisions
properly made under them."

This would suggest that any decision made under the constitution (eg, by
way of GR) is as binding as it is possible to be (you can always refuse
to do the work)

Matt

-- 
Matthew Johnson

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


Reply to: