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

[Thomas Bushnell BSG <tb@becket.net>]

Christopher Martin <chrsmrtn@debian.org> writes:

> To impose the 3:1 requirement requires, beforehand, a judgment concerning 
> the DFSG. Since no one has found a Secretarial basis for that power, it 
> follows that to arbitrarily impose 3:1 supermajorities (when doing so on 
> the basis of a personal interpretation of the DFSG) is not proper. That the 
> 3:1 bit is mentioned in the constitution is quite irrelevant.

The Secretary has the same basis as everyone else.  The Constitution
never tells the ftpmasters to implement the DFSG either.  

I didn't say he has the right to decide it for everyone else; I said
he has the right to decide it when required in the course of his
duties.  For every single resolution, the Secretary must decide if it
is a modification of a Foundation Document, and if it is, require a
3:1 majority.  

For him to require a simple majority would amount to a declaration
that the resolution does *not* modify the Foundation Document.  He
cannot avoid making that determination.

> The problem is that in the course of this procedure, the Secretary 
> overstepped his authority, as I've explained above. You may not agree with 
> that view, but I don't see why you should be so confused about my 
> complaint.

I didn't say I was confused (or if I did, I didn't mean it in this
way).  I am perfectly clear about your complaint; I think it is
groundless however.

The Secretary *must* issue a correct ballot; it his his determination
what correctness is in each and every case using the voting
procedure.  For him to say "this requires a majority" requires him to
have decided that the resolution does not work a modification of the
DFSG.  He cannot avoid making that determination, one way or the
other.

Thomas