Matthew Johnson <mjj29@debian.org> writes: > On Fri May 01 16:16, Steve Langasek wrote: > > No one has the authority to declare, a priori, for the entire > > project, that a given position statement is in conflict with a FD. This seems to advocate the possibility that a statement could be in conflict with the foundation documents “for some people”. Are you saying the statement “this proposal conflicts with the foundation documents” can be true for some people simultaneously with being false for other people? […] > If the project thinks [proposals which conflict the foundation > documents, but don't say so explicitly] _should_ require 3:1 then I > would like that enshrined in the constitution so that Kurt doesn't > have to resign over it as well, next time this comes up. If that is > the case, then of course we also need to decide who makes that > decision. you say "for the entire project"---surely a position > statement conflicts with a FD or it doesn't, whole project or no. Absolutely agreed with this. We may not agree on *whether* a given proposal conflicts with the foundation documents, but (unless we want to have the ludicrous notion that the conflict both exists and does not exist) someone needs to decide which is the case in order to determine whether a supermajority requirement applies. -- \ “I like to skate on the other side of the ice.” —Steven Wright | `\ | _o__) | Ben Finney
Attachment:
pgpGUkWy8zmFJ.pgp
Description: PGP signature