Re: Overriding vs Amending vs Position statement
Matthew Johnson <mjj29@debian.org> writes:
> On Sun May 03 01:14, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> Hm. Section 4.1 lays out what GRs are for. Most of the classes of
>> binding GRs look rather distinct from each other to me. Binding GRs
>> are:
>> * Appoint or recall the Project Leader
>> * Make or override a DPL or delegate decision
>> * Make or override a tech-ctte decision (2:1)
>> * Modify foundation documents (3:1)
>> * Make decisions about property held in trust by Debian
>> * Appoint a secretary
>> I'd say that everything else is non-binding, specifically including
>> anything passed under point 5 that doesn't modify a foundation document.
> Really? I don't see anything which says they are non-binding, but I do
> see 2.1.1: "Nothing in this constitution imposes an obligation on
> anyone to do work for the Project. A person who does not want to do a
> task which has been delegated or assigned to them does not need to do
> it. However, they must not actively work against these rules and
> decisions properly made under them."
> This would suggest that any decision made under the constitution (eg, by
> way of GR) is as binding as it is possible to be (you can always refuse
> to do the work)
Well, "position statements about issues of the day" are obviously
non-binding, so I guess we're disagreeing over "nontechnical policy
documents and statements" other than those. The constitution offers the
examples of "documents describing the goals of the project, its
relationship with other free software entities, and nontechnical
policies such as the free software licence terms that Debian software
must meet." The first two sound pretty non-binding to me, and the
latter is the DFSG, for which foundation document rules apply.
Am I missing something?
--
Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Reply to: