On Sun May 03 06:44, Russ Allbery wrote: > > Really? I don't see anything which says they are non-binding, but I do > > see 2.1.1: "Nothing in this constitution imposes an obligation on > > anyone to do work for the Project. A person who does not want to do a > > task which has been delegated or assigned to them does not need to do > > it. However, they must not actively work against these rules and > > decisions properly made under them." > > > This would suggest that any decision made under the constitution (eg, by > > way of GR) is as binding as it is possible to be (you can always refuse > > to do the work) > > Well, "position statements about issues of the day" are obviously > non-binding, so I guess we're disagreeing over "nontechnical policy > documents and statements" other than those. The constitution offers the > examples of "documents describing the goals of the project, its > relationship with other free software entities, and nontechnical > policies such as the free software licence terms that Debian software > must meet." The first two sound pretty non-binding to me, and the > latter is the DFSG, for which foundation document rules apply. > > Am I missing something?
Well, where would you say that the following GRs would fit: http://www.debian.org/vote/2006/vote_001 ("GFDL w/o invariant sections is free", 1:1) http://www.debian.org/vote/2007/vote_002 ("DDs can do binary only uploads", 1:1) http://www.debian.org/vote/2007/vote_003 ("Endorse Debian Maintainers", 1:1) to pick some examples. These aren't in your list of "things which are binding GRs", but I think they should be something we can vote on and they should be binding. Possibly this means the constitution is deficient in this area. Matt -- Matthew Johnson
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature