Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract
On Sat, Feb 11, 2006 at 06:19:28AM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 03:21:57PM +1300, Nick Phillips wrote:
> > The vote is not a means of rescinding the DFSG or SC, nor even of
> > contradicting them. It is the *only* means we have of determining
> > whether something is in compliance with them. If a majority say that
> > that is the case, then for our purposes, it is so.
>
> This is silly. It seems like the constitution effectively says "if the
> resolution passes it required a simple majority; if it failed, it needed 3:1".
On the contrary, it makes perfect sense. If it makes part of the
constitution look silly or pointless to you, then there are at least
two other possible sources of that silliness.
> If you take these "interpretive" GRs as not requiring 3:1, then you can
> bypass the 3:1 requirement entirely merely by phrasing your changes as
> an "interpretion", and you can phrase anything at all as an "interpretion".
I actually don't think that's the case. But let's assume that it
is. The fact that you can get around the 3:1 requirement by wording
your GR appropriately merely shows the 3:1 requirement (or its
wording) to have been inadequately thought through -- it certainly
doesn't magically extend it (a particularly bad idea if it seems like
it might not have been adequately thought through in the first place).
Cheers,
Nick
Reply to: