Re: Overriding vs Amending vs Position statement
Ben Finney <ben+debian@benfinney.id.au> writes:
> Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> writes:
>> Ben Finney <ben+debian@benfinney.id.au> writes:
>>> 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?
>> Of course it can be! That would only not be true if we had unanimity
>> over the meaning of the foundation documents, which we clearly do not,
> So, in effect, you advocate the position that “the foundation documents”
> refers to a different set of documents depending on who is being asked?
No. That's an absurd interpretation of what I said.
>> or if we had a body in Debian with the power to declare the canonical
>> meaning of the foundation documents for all developers, which
>> similarly we do not.
> To the extent that we need to take different action depending on
> whether a proposal conflicts with the foundation documents, is it not
> true that we need a body with the power to *make decisions* about the
> truth of statements like “this proposal conflicts with the foundation
> documents”?
Apparently not, since the project has survived for over a decade without
one. It would reduce the number of these sorts of discussions we have
to waste time with on mailing lists, so there would be some benefits,
but it's obviously not something we *need*.
> The only way I can see that power being unnecessary is if nothing
> hinges on whether a proposal conflicts with foundation documents. If,
> on the other hand, anything *does* hinge on that determination,
> someone needs to *make* that determination in cases where actions
> depend on it.
And who makes that decision has already been explained at *ridiculous*
length on this mailing list, so I'll assume you already know how that
works.
--
Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Reply to: