Re: Constitutional issues in the wake of Lenny
Kurt Roeckx <kurt@roeckx.be> writes:
> But these do not seem like a position statement to me:
> - Allow Lenny to release with firmware blobs
> - Allow Lenny to release with known DFSG violations
>
> It does not say how to interprete the DFSG/SC, and both
> seem to temporary override the Foundation Document.
Well, this is the reason why, in my proposal, I require that the GR
explicitly say one way or the other whether it's overriding a FD if it's
at all ambiguous. I don't believe either of those proposals should be
allowed to go to vote until they explicitly say either that they're
temporarily overriding a FD or that they believe that the release is
consistent with the FD as written and are therefore a non-binding position
statement on how the project interprets the FD.
Basically, what I'm saying is that I'm not very worried about the case of
a non-binding position statement saying that it doesn't override an FD but
saying something completely contradictory to it. First, I don't think
such a GR would pass, and second, even if it does, it's non-binding, so
DDs who completely disagree with it aren't bound to follow it.
nWhat I want to do is get out of the deadlock where the Secretary feels
obligated to make a ruling on whether or not the interpretation is correct
when that may be the whole point of the GR. Instead, the GR should
explicitly say one way or the other whether it's intended to change the
FD.
--
Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Reply to: