Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract
Stephen Gran <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> This one time, at band camp, Thomas Bushnell BSG said:
>> Christopher Martin <email@example.com> writes:
>> > 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%.
> If 51% of developers vote for something that silly, there is not much we
> can do to save the project, frankly. Your attitude that we need hand
> holding and protection from ourselves is rather insulting.
This is not *my* attitude; it is the attitude of those who wanted a
3:1 supermajority for changes to the Foundation Documents. What did
they mean by this, if not that a mere majority could not be trusted
with such things?
I was, in fact, *against* that change, though I didn't feel strongly
about it, and did not vote. It is now the rule. I assume that those
who put it forward thought a mere majority could not be trusted with
such things. For the record, the proposer and seconders of that GR
Manoj Srivastava [firstname.lastname@example.org]
Andrew Suffield [email@example.com]
Neil Roeth [firstname.lastname@example.org]
Steve Langasek [email@example.com]
Matthias Urlichs [firstname.lastname@example.org]
Joe Nahmias [email@example.com]
Simon Law [firstname.lastname@example.org]