Re: DFSG, GFDL, and position statementsd

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

Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org> writes:

> Because the constitution does not specify a standard for sanity or
> rationality.  It may be *irrational* for the project to claim that the GFDL
> with invariant sections meets the DFSG's requirements, and the passing of
> such a GR might leave me with no confidence whatsoever in the judgement of
> this project, but neither of those is grounds for imposing a 3:1
> supermajority requirement.  

The problem with this view is that it effectively would nullify the
3:1 requirement if applied in some other cases.

For example, a resolution which said "All software hereby meets the
DFSG", and which passes by a slim majority, would effectively repeal
the DFSG.  But under the view you give, such contradictions are merely
irrational.

If the 3:1 requirement is to mean anything, it must mean that things
which explicitly *or implicitly* modify foundation documents must
receive a 3:1 majority.  It certainly cannot be limited only to things
which explicitly modify the text.

Thomas