Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract
Christopher Martin wrote:
> Therefore, no modification of the DFSG would be required after the passage
> of the amendment, since it would have been decided by the developers that
> there was no inconsistency.
If a simple majority can yell, "there is no inconsistency" then the 3:1
requirement has little meaning. I think it'd be reasonable to request
that people who believe  is wrong should produce reasoned arguments
against it; to the best of my knowledge (and memory, of course), no one
has done so.
Without a reasoned argument for why the GFDL w/o Invariant Sections is
free, I don't see how the Secretary can consider the amendment anything
else than an attempt to change a foundation document, and either rule it
out of order or require the supermajority.