Re: Overriding vs Amending vs Position statement

[Ben Finney <ben+debian@benfinney.id.au>]

Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> writes:

> 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.

Yet I can't disambiguate it from this:

> > 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.

I presume this is referring to the practice of leaving the determination
to each individual person acting. Which, in effect, is allowing that the
foundation documents have a different meaning for each person and none
of them are wrong.

Where have I misunderstood you, and how do you resolve this apparent
absurdity?

-- 
 \        “The reason we come up with new versions is not to fix bugs. |
  `\                     It's absolutely not.” —Bill Gates, 1995-10-23 |
_o__)                                                                  |
Ben Finney