Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Fri, May 01 2009, Don Armstrong wrote:On Fri, 01 May 2009, Luk Claes wrote:A position statement is a decided on proposal that clarifies the position of the Debian project, but does not explicitly amend a foundation document.[...]So I don't really see what we should vote on unless someone disagrees with above interpretations?The only question resides with the effect of passing such position statements. Without modifying foundation documents or the constitution, they are effectively non-binding advisory statements when operating within areas that are the remit of foundation documents or the constitution.Developers can ignore (or follow) such statements as they wish.If the statements are in contradiction of the foundation document (which is the case in a couple of prior situations), then are you saying that anything in the foundation documents can ve worked around by putting out a position statement, and have the developers proceed to ignore the foundation document on that basis?
Of course not. If a position statement contradicts a foundation document it's time to update the foundation document accordingly or drop the position statement again.
That also begs the question: do we _have_ to follow the
foundation documents? Or can one just issue a statement "I do not agree
with the foundation doc" and just ignore it at will?
You do realise that a majority needs to agree with it before it turns into a position statement?
It's not because a position statement is not binding that a foundation document would also not be binding...
if that is not the case, what value does a position statement in
contradiction of a foundation document mean?
It would be a clear indication that the foundation document should get an update or that the postition statement should get dropped again.
Can I just set a position statement that redefines all the owrds
used in a foundation doc to promote my "interpretation" of the
foundation doc, as long as the majority of the people voting rate it
over FD?
This is actually asking if a position statement can clarify a foundation document but put in a twisted way AFAICS...
How binding _are_ the foundation documents?
Interesting question as you seem to be one to take the Constitution with a twisted interpretation when it fits you best in some previous occasions.
free === does not cost more than USD 1000300.73
distribute == transport over trains between sunday noon and monday
morning 8:00am"
Guidelines === something that must be followed in the ides of march
I guess this is a bad attempt at a joke? Cheers Luk