Matthew Johnson <mj...@debian.org> writes: > I was trying to demonstrate that there are things which are in > conflict with a foundation document and that something needs to be > done about vote options which are such conflicts but don't explicitly > amend that document.
Oh, okay, sorry. Yes, I do agree with that. > The solution could be as you say that they are therefore non-binding > (although I don't see that is is a _useful_ solution, see Don and > Manoj's posts to this thread, it's at least _consistent). I've posted in the past why I think it's useful, but I'm assuming people have seen that and just don't agree with it. It's certainly not as useful as making a binding 3:1 decision, but there are cases where we *can't* make a 3:1 decision because no option has a 3:1 majority. > It could be that they need 3:1 to pass whether they are explicit > modifications to the document or not (which is what I always thought > was the case), or it could be that they are binding even without a > super majority (and it's this view I was trying to address here. > > All of these are consistent views held by several of the contributors > to the various threads, and all of them consider that to be what the > status quo is. I wish to clarify it one way or another I think the first option (that they need 3:1 to pass whether they're explicit or not) just begs the question and therefore won't solve any of our problems unless we also identify a specific body who decides what does and does not modify foundation documents, which in practice is identical to defining a body that states what the foundation documents mean for all developers. I just want to be sure that we don't separate those two out, since if we do we're not going to solve the problem. We're just shuffling it around. -- 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