Re: Overriding vs Amending vs Position statement
On Fri, 01 May 2009, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> 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?
No. I'm in fact saying that developers can ignore the position
statement on that basis.
> if that is not the case, what value does a position statement in
> contradiction of a foundation document mean?
Next to no value, as far as I'm concerned.
> How binding _are_ the foundation documents?
Only as binding as we as a group consider them to be.
Since the language they're written in is ambiguous, we can have
reasonable differences of opinion as to what the foundation documents
actually mean. A position statement about the foundation documents
only serves to state what a majority of the project thinks the
documents say; it doesn't change what the documents actually say.[1]
As such, people who think differently are free to ignore the position
statement in carrying out their duties (though they can of course be
overridden by GR.)
Don Armstrong
1: Fundamentally though, I find the whole process of making position
statements about the foundation documents tedious. If you think the
documents meaning is unclear, propose amendments to the documents to
make them clearer.
--
I really wanted to talk to her.
I just couldn't find an algorithm that fit.
-- Peter Watts _Blindsight_ p294
http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu
Reply to: