Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract
Anthony Towns <email@example.com> writes:
> In any event, there is in fact a meaning in that case: the 3:1
> suerpmajority would still apply to issues where the majority of developers
> felt that the proposed resolution did contradict the social contract or
> DFSG -- and that the social contract/DFSG happened to be wrong.
> Personally, I hope and trust that the developer body are honourable
> enough to note vote for a proposal they think contradicts the social
> contract or DFSG.
It's not about honor; it's about decision-making.
If a majority sincerely believe that their proposal does not run afoul
of the 3:1 requirement, does that mean that it therefore does not?
I think that it is possible for people to disagree about such a
question, and it seems crazy to me to say that anytime they disagree,
it can be settled by majority vote.
Moreover, while I think a majority of the developers are surely
honorable, this is not true of everyone. Now that this is the *third*
time we are being asked to vote on essentially the same question, I
suspect that many of the proponents of the measure are simply
unwilling to let it drop, and will continue to pester the rest of the
project forever. This is not honorable behavior.