Re: Overriding vs Amending vs Position statement
On Fri, May 01 2009, Luk Claes wrote:
> 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.
Err, so why not do it in one pass? Why this strange two pass
vote?
How do you want to handle the case where a 51% majority wants
the position, but no more than that? There is not enough votes to
actually change the foundation docs in that case.
>
>> 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?
Sure. A bare majority, let us suppose.
> It's not because a position statement is not binding that a foundation
> document would also not be binding...
So why do you think the foundation document is not binding? (I
must confess to having some problems parsing this statement).
>> 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.
Why this torturous path? Why not see if there are actually votes
to change the FD, rather than creating and dropping position
statements?
>> 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...
If by clarifying, youmean redefining all the words, sure.
>
>> 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.
Aha. The first attack on the man, rather than the contents of my
arguments. Jesus, it sure did not take long for the conversation to
descend to the pits.
>
>> 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?
What joke? That might me my "interpretation", or, as you put it,
the "clarification" of the SC.
manoj
--
In my experience, if you have to keep the lavatory door shut by
extending your left leg, it's modern architecture. -- Nancy Banks Smith
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: