Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract

[Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au>]

On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 11:25:10AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > It says how the documents can be superceded or withdrawn; it doesn't
> > say anything about ignoring them outright, or changing the way they're
> > interpreted.
> That's a strawman argument.
> The ballot options are not being ignored.  

I didn't say anything about the ballot options being ignored -- I said the
constitution doesn't say anything about ignoring foundation documents --
ie the social contract or the DFSG. We're actually doing that right now
in a sense, by continuing to leave bugs like #199810 unfixed.

> I certainly would not want the secretary acting as if controversial
> proposals were a true of the project goals before they had been
> voted on.

Instead, he's acting as though they're false before they've been voted
on -- personally, I don't think that's any better. A controversial false
statement is just the inverse of a controversial true statement, afterall.

Anyway, I think I've said my piece.

Cheers,
aj

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature