Re: Overriding vs Amending vs Position statement
Matthew Johnson <mjj29@debian.org> writes:
> Well, where would you say that the following GRs would fit:
>
> http://www.debian.org/vote/2006/vote_001 ("GFDL w/o invariant sections is free", 1:1)
Non-binding position statement. It doesn't really need to be binding
since the people who were doing the work didn't think it contradicted
the DFSG. That's the best use of project policy statements, I think:
they're highly persuasive to the people doing the work.
> http://www.debian.org/vote/2007/vote_002 ("DDs can do binary only uploads", 1:1)
Delegate override. That was pretty clearly a delegate override at the
time. It explicitly reversed a decision made by a delegate.
> http://www.debian.org/vote/2007/vote_003 ("Endorse Debian Maintainers", 1:1)
Hm. Not sure about this one.
> These aren't in your list of "things which are binding GRs", but I
> think they should be something we can vote on and they should be
> binding. Possibly this means the constitution is deficient in this
> area.
For the last, yeah, I'm not sure what to make of that. It does feel
like a binding 1:1 majority decision. It feels kind of odd that a
decision of that magnitude can be made with a 1:1 majority vote when
things that have less significant impact on the project require 3:1
majorities.
--
Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Reply to: