On Fri, 01 May 2009, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > If the statements are in contradiction of the foundation document > (which is the case in a couple of prior situations), then are you > saying that anything in the foundation documents can ve worked > around by putting out a position statement, and have the developers > proceed to ignore the foundation document on that basis?
No. I'm in fact saying that developers can ignore the position statement on that basis. > if that is not the case, what value does a position statement in > contradiction of a foundation document mean? Next to no value, as far as I'm concerned. > How binding _are_ the foundation documents? Only as binding as we as a group consider them to be. Since the language they're written in is ambiguous, we can have reasonable differences of opinion as to what the foundation documents actually mean. A position statement about the foundation documents only serves to state what a majority of the project thinks the documents say; it doesn't change what the documents actually say.[1] As such, people who think differently are free to ignore the position statement in carrying out their duties (though they can of course be overridden by GR.) Don Armstrong 1: Fundamentally though, I find the whole process of making position statements about the foundation documents tedious. If you think the documents meaning is unclear, propose amendments to the documents to make them clearer. -- I really wanted to talk to her. I just couldn't find an algorithm that fit. -- Peter Watts _Blindsight_ p294 http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
