Russ Allbery <[email protected]> writes: > Ben Finney <[email protected]> writes: > > Are you saying the statement “this proposal conflicts with the > > foundation documents” can be true for some people simultaneously > > with being false for other people? > > Of course it can be! That would only not be true if we had unanimity > over the meaning of the foundation documents, which we clearly do not,
So, in effect, you advocate the position that “the foundation documents” refers to a different set of documents depending on who is being asked? > or if we had a body in Debian with the power to declare the canonical > meaning of the foundation documents for all developers, which similarly > we do not. To the extent that we need to take different action depending on whether a proposal conflicts with the foundation documents, is it not true that we need a body with the power to *make decisions* about the truth of statements like “this proposal conflicts with the foundation documents”? The only way I can see that power being unnecessary is if nothing hinges on whether a proposal conflicts with foundation documents. If, on the other hand, anything *does* hinge on that determination, someone needs to *make* that determination in cases where actions depend on it. -- \ “Holy tintinnabulation, Batman!” —Robin | `\ | _o__) | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
