On Tue, 1 Jun 2004 19:19:10 -0400, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Tue, Jun 01, 2004 at 06:22:09PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote: >> In my opinion it's as this: >> >> - If a GR has normal majority, and does not conflict with a >> foundation >> document, it's ok. > Until the vote is held, it's not reasonable to act on any specific > outcome for the vote -- we can't know whether the winning option > will receive a normal majority. We can't even know which option > will win. Quite. But some options are marked as having majority requirements, I think it is reasonable to expect that any option that could overrule a foundation document be required to state that majority requirement up front. >> - If a GR has 3:1 majority and specifies to (possible) override a >> foundation document, it's ok. > And if the override is implicitly specified, but not explicitly > specified, then what? I think that is a grey area, and would much rather not go there. Let us specify the intent up front, can't we? >> - Everything else will create noise on d-vote, and should therefore >> be >> avoided. (This is no statement about such a GR being acceptable - >> I'm just more happy to don't discuss it to every detail.) >> >> Ok? > Even in the absence of any override, a "position of the day" has > quite a bit of force -- it just needs to not explicitly conflict > with any foundation documents. Ambiguities in documents give a fair > degree of latitude. I have no problem with this. manoj -- If you keep your mind sufficiently open, people will throw a lot of rubbish into it. William Orton Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/> 1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]