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".
In the same line of thinking, it cannot be obviated merely by a single
person declaring "there is a contradiction here". Even if that single
person, by constitutional decree, is the one who "Adjudicates any
disputes about interpretation of the constitution" (note, the
constitution--not the DFSG, which is a "foundation document" but not the
same thing as the constitution).
--
Fun will now commence
-- Seven Of Nine, "Ashes to Ashes", stardate 53679.4
Reply to: