Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract
On 2/9/06, Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au> wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 08, 2006 at 08:58:39PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> > It's not about honor; it's about decision-making.
>
> When you raise the implication that your fellow developers can't be
> trusted, you make it about honour; when you think it's important to
> move a decision from one set of hands to another in order to ensure the
> "right" decision is made, that's a pretty direct implication that you
> don't trust the first group.
Is this courtesy to be extended to the project secretary?
If not, why not?
> > If a majority sincerely believe that their proposal does not run afoul
> > of the 3:1 requirement, does that mean that it therefore does not?
>
> If the secretary sincerely believes the proposal has a 3:1 requirement,
> does that mean it does? I think you're better off looking at the
> constitution, personally.
This seems to be a moot distinction, given that the constitution says
that the secretary is the judge in disputes about what the constitution
means. (section 7.1.3)
> As it happens, it says nothing about implicit changes to foundation
> documents, or even about having to act in accord with them.
Section 4.1.5.3 seems to say something about this issue. It doesn't
use the exact words you've used, but the meaning of the words it
does use seems more than adequate.
--
Raul
Reply to: