Matthew Johnson <[email protected]> writes: > Well, where would you say that the following GRs would fit: > > http://www.debian.org/vote/2006/vote_001 ("GFDL w/o invariant sections is > free", 1:1)
Non-binding position statement. It doesn't really need to be binding since the people who were doing the work didn't think it contradicted the DFSG. That's the best use of project policy statements, I think: they're highly persuasive to the people doing the work. > http://www.debian.org/vote/2007/vote_002 ("DDs can do binary only uploads", > 1:1) Delegate override. That was pretty clearly a delegate override at the time. It explicitly reversed a decision made by a delegate. > http://www.debian.org/vote/2007/vote_003 ("Endorse Debian Maintainers", 1:1) Hm. Not sure about this one. > These aren't in your list of "things which are binding GRs", but I > think they should be something we can vote on and they should be > binding. Possibly this means the constitution is deficient in this > area. For the last, yeah, I'm not sure what to make of that. It does feel like a binding 1:1 majority decision. It feels kind of odd that a decision of that magnitude can be made with a 1:1 majority vote when things that have less significant impact on the project require 3:1 majorities. -- Russ Allbery ([email protected]) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
