On Sun May 03 06:44, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > 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?
Well, where would you say that the following GRs would fit:
http://www.debian.org/vote/2006/vote_001 ("GFDL w/o invariant sections is free", 1:1)
http://www.debian.org/vote/2007/vote_002 ("DDs can do binary only uploads", 1:1)
http://www.debian.org/vote/2007/vote_003 ("Endorse Debian Maintainers", 1:1)
to pick some examples. These aren't in your list of "things which are
binding GRs", but I think they should be something we can vote on and
they should be binding. Possibly this means the constitution is
deficient in this area.
Matt
--
Matthew Johnson
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature