Re: Constitutional issues in the wake of Lenny

On Sat, Mar 14, 2009 at 12:07:03PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Matthew Johnson <mjj29 <at> debian.org> writes:
> 
> > As Luk says, tackling these one at a time is probably best. So, first up
> > is (bullets numbered so that I can refer to them):
> 
> >> Positions (in no particular order):
> >> 
> >> 1 The supermajority is rubbish and we should drop it entirely, so it doesn't
> >>   matter what the difference is.
> >> 2 Anything which overrides a FD implicitly modifies it to contain that
> >>   specific exception, even if it's not specified in the GR, so always needs
> >>   3:1.
> >> 3 Actually, the Social Contract isn't binding per-se, individual delegates/
> >>   developers are aiming for it as a goal, but can interpret it as they see
> >>   fit.
> >> 4 The DFSG doesn't automatically trump our users, we'll cope with DFSG
> >>   issues if it's needed for things to work.
> >> 5 Single exceptions don't require supermajority, but permanent changes do
> 
> I'm not sure that I see my position in there, which is a combination of 2
> and 3.  The rule I would like to see is:
> 
>  6 Anything which overrides a Foundation Document modifies it to contain
>    that expecific exception and must say so in the proposal before the
>    vote proceeds.  Such overrides require a 3:1 majority.
> 
>    A GR which explicitly states that it does not override a Foundation
>    Document but instead offers a project interpretation of that Foundation
>    Document does not modify the document and therefore does not require a
>    3:1 majority.  This is true even if the Secretary disagrees with the
>    interpretation.  However, such intepretations are not binding on the
>    project.

Would that be a "position statement"?  That only seems to have a
normal majority requirement.

The problem I have with position statements is that they're not
binding.  But it atleast gives the secretary a consensus to base
decisions on for other votes.

Kurt