Matthew Johnson <mj...@debian.org> writes: > As Luk says, tackling these one at a time is probably best. So, first up > is (bullets numbered so that I can refer to them):
>> Positions (in no particular order): >> >> 1 The supermajority is rubbish and we should drop it entirely, so it doesn't >> matter what the difference is. >> 2 Anything which overrides a FD implicitly modifies it to contain that >> specific exception, even if it's not specified in the GR, so always needs >> 3:1. >> 3 Actually, the Social Contract isn't binding per-se, individual delegates/ >> developers are aiming for it as a goal, but can interpret it as they see >> fit. >> 4 The DFSG doesn't automatically trump our users, we'll cope with DFSG >> issues if it's needed for things to work. >> 5 Single exceptions don't require supermajority, but permanent changes do I'm not sure that I see my position in there, which is a combination of 2 and 3. The rule I would like to see is: 6 Anything which overrides a Foundation Document modifies it to contain that expecific exception and must say so in the proposal before the vote proceeds. Such overrides require a 3:1 majority. A GR which explicitly states that it does not override a Foundation Document but instead offers a project interpretation of that Foundation Document does not modify the document and therefore does not require a 3:1 majority. This is true even if the Secretary disagrees with the interpretation. However, such intepretations are not binding on the project. In the event that it's unclear whether a particular GR falls into the first group or the second group, the vote should not proceed until this has been clarified in the GR. -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org