Kurt Roeckx writes ("Re: Position statements short of a GR - DPL statements"): > On Tue, Jan 08, 2013 at 04:24:16PM +0000, Ian Jackson wrote: > > If in your view formal statements from the DPL are not permitted, can > > you please comment on which of the following prospective web pages > > setting out position statements are permitted and which are also > > unconstitutional ? > > I think it all depends on what the statement says, and how it > can be interpreted. > > For instance, if we end up with a policy on how to deal with > incomming trademarks I think that would fall under 4.1.5 > and would need a GR. But you could also interprete is as just > a decision of the DPL, and I guess it all comes down on how > you write it down.
I imagine the document would provide a set of recommendations for maintainers, sponsors, ftpmasters, and so forth. Obviously it couldn't make any final decisions because it wouldn't deal with specific cases. But from a constitutional point of view I think it is be anomalous that there is any doubt about anyone's ability to write non-binding position statements on any matter. I guess I'll have to try to fix this along with the other three or four bugs which I have in my queue along with the TC supermajority bug. Ian. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20724.655.346704.848...@chiark.greenend.org.uk