Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract
On 2/9/06, Christopher Martin <email@example.com> wrote:
> Please cite the part of the constitution which grants the Secretary this
> extraordinary power. Despite what Raul Miller repeatedly asserts, a minor
> power to decide issues of constitutional interpretation in cases of
> deadlock DOES NOT mean that they have the power to interpret the DFSG,
> since the DFSG is not the constitution.
"Repeatedly asserts"? I think, if you check my assertion, it included
a direct reference to the text of the constitution that I was referring
If you think I'm wrong, perhaps you could say specifically what it
is about what I wrote which conflicts with that part of the constitution?
Note also that the 3:1 supermajority requirement is not a part
of the DFSG. So your explicit claim about DFSG interpretation
being out of scope for the secretary doesn't seem to provide a basis
for your implicit claim that the secretary does not have the right
to impose the requirement on some of the options in this vote.
> Indeed, section 4.1 states that the developers, by way of GRs or elections,
> have the power to "issue, supersede and withdraw nontechnical policy
> documents and statements. These include documents describing the goals of
> the project, its relationship with other free software entities, and
> nontechnical policies such as the free software licence terms that Debian
> software must meet. They may also include position statements about issues
> of the day." The GFDL sounds like an "issue of the day" to me.
Sure, and the constitution goes on and lists the procedure the
developers follow when doing these things.
And we're following those procedures.
So where's the problem?