On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 04:56:47PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: >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 are explicitly superseded or changed, not just for making a project 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.
Absolutely. -- Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK. [email protected] Into the distance, a ribbon of black Stretched to the point of no turning back -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
