Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract
Christopher Martin <email@example.com> writes:
> No one's. He should allow the developers to decide without shaping the vote
> by imposing 3:1 supermajority requirements (when doing so presupposes the
> very issue under debate, as in the case of DFSG interpretation).
Having a majority vote amounts to a decision that the status quo does
not prohibit the GFDL.
> No, he must not make any such determination in cases where the DFSG is in
> dispute. You keep asserting that, while ignoring the arguments I make as to
> _why_. He would not be shirking his duty, since my whole point is that he
> does not have that duty. He must not prejudge issues of DFSG
> interpretation; that is not his job.
You say that he shouldn't make that interpretation, but you haven't
said anything about what he should do then, given that each option
represents an interpretive decision. To have a 3:1 ballot requires
deciding that the resolution works an amendment to the DFSG. To have
a majority ballot requires deciding that it doesn't.
> Yes. Because I would trust the developers to see the amendment as the silly
> fraud that it would be, and vote it down. We don't need the Secretary's
> protection, believe it or not.
Really? Even if a majority of the developers liked the idea?
Remember, the 3:1 requirement is there to protect the remaining 25%
against majorities as high as 74%.