Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract
Christopher Martin <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> What I do see are a handful of single-minded individuals (only a small
> subset of those who wish to have the GFDL removed, I stress) who seem
> incapable of grasping the possibility that people might disagree with their
> DFSG interpretations without being evil, stupid, or secret traitors to
> Debian willing to sell out our sacred principles for trifling expediency
> without the guts to admit what they're doing.
Please don't put words in my mouth. I haven't called anyone evil,
stupid, or a secret traitor, and I've heard no one else call anyone
else such things in this debate. Well, Craig has. He's on your side,
> Thus the viewpoint that the developers shouldn't be allowed to
> decide what the foundation documents mean makes perfect sense.
If a mere majority resolution can declare what the foundation
documents mean, then the requirement of a supermajority is
Really, the purpose of the 3:1 requirement is to prevent a majority
from changing the foundation documents. If it means anything, it
means that a mere majority is *not sufficient* to decide such a
Of course, the people who wanted the 3:1 supermajority are largely
those who wanted to keep non-free in the Debian archive. In this way,
the necessary changes to the Social Contract could be defeated. Ah,
now it turns out that this works both ways. Suddenly we hear calls
for strict majoritarianism.