Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract
On Wed, Feb 08, 2006 at 11:50:51AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> On 2/8/06, Nick Phillips <email@example.com> wrote:
> > The GR as amended might appear to contradict the Social Contract, or the
> > DFSG, but it certainly *does not* modify them, and hence cannot be said to
> > require a supermajority.
> This comment seems insincere.
Down that road lies tit-for-tat ad-hominem.
> If the GR is adopted by Debian, there is no significant difference
> between "contradicts the foundation documents" and "modifies
> the foundation documents".
First of all, you're assuming that it does contradict the foundation
documents. It clearly asserts otherwise, and one might assume that
developers voting for it would agree with that. If it won a majority,
it would therefore seem to be the case that the majority of developers
agreed with it. In which case those asserting that it needed
supermajority wouldn't have a leg to stand on. So we'd be in a right
Second, you're completely wrong. Of course there is a difference
between modifying the foundation documents and appearing to contradict
them. One modifies them and the other, well, doesn't.