Re: Results for General Resolution: Lenny and resolving DFSG violations
Thomas Bushnell BSG <tb@becket.net> writes:
> On Sun, 2008-12-28 at 09:05 +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > What this voting seems to show is that […] the mixing up of the
> > other options on this ballot and the way the supermajority
> > requirements were set is problematic, and probably supporters of
> > any other option than 1 (and perhaps also except 6) can claim that
> > they would've won if the majority requirements were set in a way
> > they consider more appropriate.
>
> It is problematic? Are you saying that the 2/3 requirement for
> changes to the foundation documents should not apply if a majority
> thinks otherwise?
Several points here:
A 3:1 supermajority is ¾, not ⅔.
Some members do not agree with the actual supermajority requirements
as assigned to the options on the ballot, which is not a comment on
how those people think we should change foundation documents.
Some members do not agree that the supermajority-required ballot
options actually required changes to the foundation documents, which
is not a comment on how those people think supermajority requirements
should be assigned.
I can only conclude that we really do need to see a vote (as proposed
earlier) on how the SC and DFSG should affect the Debian project. The
outcome of that vote would help me, at least, to understand what the
project thinks the relationship is between our actions and the
foundation documents.
--
\ “I love and treasure individuals as I meet them, I loathe and |
`\ despise the groups they identify with and belong to.” —George |
_o__) Carlin, 2007 |
Ben Finney
Reply to: