On Thursday 09 February 2006 16:41, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: > Christopher Martin <chrsmrtn@debian.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, > right? Please don't be so doggedly literal. The point of my little parody was to draw out, in a stark manner, the attitudes which seem to underlie the viewpoint which you hold, whether you're willing to spell them out or not. Our fellow readers can judge my assessment's plausibility for themselves. > 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 > question. You're stuck in a loop. I know perfectly well that to change a foundation document requires 3:1, but the question is, who decides what is and is not a contradiction or change to the foundation documents and so needs 3:1? You? The Secretary? Someone has to, and I think the developers should. Because in the end, if the developers go completely mad and decide that EVERYTHING IS DFSG FREE, 3:1 won't stop them for long. They could just elect a like-minded DPL, replace the Secretary with someone more pliant, hold another vote... The point is, you either trust the developers to be sane, or you don't and therefore think that you, or someone who agrees with you, should simply decide things by fiat. I don't accept that. And it is quite possible for the developers to want to change/suspend the foundation documents, while being perfectly aware of what they're doing. Hence 3:1. Like in the vote to delay the "editorial changes" until post-Sarge. See, the system can work. > 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. I have no idea what you're talking about. Nobody is calling for "strict majoritarianism". What is being called for is that the developers be allowed to decide issues of interpretation of the DFSG, as is their prerogative. Christopher Martin
Attachment:
pgp6wY6n2Al78.pgp
Description: PGP signature