On Fri, May 01 2009, Steve Langasek wrote: > On Fri, May 01, 2009 at 11:54:15PM +0100, Matthew Johnson wrote: >> On Sat May 02 00:52, Luk Claes wrote: >> > It would be a clear indication that the foundation document should get an >> > update or that the postition statement should get dropped again. > >> I think Manoj's point is that if voting some option X (a position >> statement in conflict with an FD) means that we have to vote to change >> the FD or drop X, then why wasn't X a vote to change the FD in the first >> place? Surely we don't need a vote just to then have another vote... > > No one has the authority to declare, a priori, for the entire project, that > a given position statement is in conflict with a FD.
Does anyone have authority, a posteriori, to declare that any given position statement is in contradiction of a foundation document? Or is it only deliverable by a GR? This will be interesting. So, in order to determine whether a foundation document is being modified, we first ask the project, via a GR, whether it is indeed a contradiction. _THEN_ we hold a vote, with or without the 3:1 majority, based o the previous vote, to see if it passes or not. I think Joey Hess is right. manoj -- Program: Any assignment that cannot be completed with one telephone call. Kelvin Throop III, "The Management Dictionary" Manoj Srivastava <sriva...@debian.org> <http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/> 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org