Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract
Anthony Towns <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> On Wed, Feb 08, 2006 at 08:58:39PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>> 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.
> When you raise the implication that your fellow developers can't be
> trusted, you make it about honour; when you think it's important to
> move a decision from one set of hands to another in order to ensure the
> "right" decision is made, that's a pretty direct implication that you
> don't trust the first group.
They can be trusted not to lie. They cannot be trusted never to make