Ean Schuessler <[email protected]> writes: > ----- "Steve McIntyre" <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> Both the override and the statement about the meaning of the documents >>> should require 1:1. 3:1 should only be required when the documents >>> are explicitly superseded or changed, not just for making a project >>> statement about their interpretation.
>> And that's my interpretation too. I think the constitution is quite >> clear here. > > If the new interpretation alters the meaning of the document then the > operation is functionally identical. Making a project statement about what the document means by definition doesn't alter anything except possibly the previous project sense of the meaning, which should *never* have been subject to a 3:1 majority requirement. This is the way the decision-making process in the constitution works, so far as I can tell. Maybe you would like to amend the constitution? If you do so, you need to add to the constitution some statement about who decides what the foundation documents mean in the context of developer decisions, since right now the constititution does not give that authority to anyone and hence it devolves to the individual developers doing their work, as possibly overridden by a delegate decision or a GR (none of which require a 3:1 majority). I understand why you might want the decision-making process that you're arguing for, but it isn't the one that we have right now, and saying that you want it doesn't put it into effect. -- Russ Allbery ([email protected]) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
