On Sat, Mar 14, 2009 at 09:45:58PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > Kurt Roeckx <k...@roeckx.be> writes: > > On Sat, Mar 14, 2009 at 12:07:03PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > > >> 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. > > > Would that be a "position statement"? That only seems to have a > > normal majority requirement. > > > > The problem I have with position statements is that they're not > > binding. But it atleast gives the secretary a consensus to base > > decisions on for other votes. > > Yup, exactly, something that fit the last paragraph would be a position > statement.
I have no problem with considering the following to be position statements: - Firmware blobs are not a DFSG violation - Allow releases with known DFSG violations They are interpreting the DFSG/SC. But these do not seem like a position statement to me: - Allow Lenny to release with firmware blobs - Allow Lenny to release with known DFSG violations It does not say how to interprete the DFSG/SC, and both seem to temporary override the Foundation Document. Kurt -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org