Re: DFSG, GFDL, and position statementsd
On Mon, Jan 30, 2006 at 01:47:02PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>
> > 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.
Not necessarily. Acording to the Constitution "A Foundation Document
is a document or statement regarded as critical to the Project's
mission and purposes." This seems to imply that the Foundation
Documents take precedence over any "non-foundational" resolution.
> For example, a resolution which said "All software hereby meets the
> DFSG", and which passes by a slim majority, would effectively repeal
> the DFSG.
In this case the Foundation Documents effectively invalidate any part
of the resolution that contradicts with them.
Anton Zinoviev
Reply to: