[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract

On Wed, Feb 08, 2006 at 07:56:45PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Nick Phillips <nwp@nz.lemon-computing.com> writes:
> > documents. It clearly asserts otherwise, and one might assume that
> > developers voting for it would agree with that. If it won a majority,
> > it would therefore seem to be the case that the majority of developers
> > agreed with it. In which case those asserting that it needed
> > supermajority wouldn't have a leg to stand on. So we'd be in a right
> > mess.
> Clearly if the 3:1 supermajority requirement means anything, it cannot
> be obviated merely by a simple majority declaring "there is no
> contradiction".  

Way back in highschool, I was told that you shouldn't use the word
"clearly" because it's a sure sign that you aren't actually able to
backup the assertion you're about to make.

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; and I don't see much point to all the implications
that we're not that honourable and need to have the secretary's adult
supervision. I don't see much point to all the grumbling about the
secretary's supervision either though -- if we're acting like adult's
anyway, that's hardly a problem, is it?


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: