Re: Overriding vs Amending vs Position statement
On Fri, May 01 2009, Don Armstrong wrote:
> Only as binding as we as a group consider them to be.
Hmm. Certainly puts the social contract in a new light, though.
> 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.)
I think I can live with that.
Wait.
Oh. So this is a way, via two simple majority GR's, for any
majority to do an end run around the 3:1 constitutional requirements?
nifty.
manoj
--
Behind every great man, there is a woman -- urging him on. Harry Mudd,
"I, Mudd", stardate 4513.3
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> <http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Reply to: