Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract
Christopher Martin <email@example.com> writes:
> Please don't be so doggedly literal. The point of my little parody was to
> draw out, in a stark manner, the attitudes which seem to underlie the
> viewpoint which you hold, whether you're willing to spell them out or not.
> Our fellow readers can judge my assessment's plausibility for themselves.
No, this is simply not the attitudes which underlay my viewpoint.
> I have no idea what you're talking about. Nobody is calling for "strict
> majoritarianism". What is being called for is that the developers be
> allowed to decide issues of interpretation of the DFSG, as is their
Ah, well, they do have that right. All I'm saying is that when their
"interpretation" is judged by the Secretary to be more in the nature
of a "repeal", they must do so by a 3:1 vote.