On Fri, May 01 2009, Don Armstrong wrote:
> Only as binding as we as a group consider them to be. Hmm. Certainly puts the social contract in a new light, though. > 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.) I think I can live with that. Wait. Oh. So this is a way, via two simple majority GR's, for any majority to do an end run around the 3:1 constitutional requirements? nifty. manoj -- Behind every great man, there is a woman -- urging him on. Harry Mudd, "I, Mudd", stardate 4513.3 Manoj Srivastava <sriva...@debian.org> <http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/> 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org