Re: Anton's amendment
Hamish Moffatt <hamish@debian.org> writes:
> On Wed, Feb 01, 2006 at 05:17:24PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>> Suppose we have a case where a majority of the developers want to
>> change the DFSG, but they don't have enough to win a 3:1 vote.
>>
>> All they need to do, if you are right, is proceed to declare that
>> their change is really just an interpretation of whatever is already
>> there. And, by hypothesis, they can present a claim that heck, a
>> *majority* of developers say that their interpretation is certainly at
>> least plausible (after all, they think it's *correct*).
>>
>> So, if you are right, the 3:1 supermajority requirement is entirely
>> empty, because it is a trivial matter for people to circumvent it.
>
> Who is to say that one interpretation is any more valid than the other?
The Secretary, who has that job.
Reply to: