[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

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

On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 03:21:57PM +1300, Nick Phillips wrote:
> The vote is not a means of rescinding the DFSG or SC, nor even of
> contradicting them. It is the *only* means we have of determining
> whether something is in compliance with them. If a majority say that
> that is the case, then for our purposes, it is so.

This is silly.  It seems like the constitution effectively says "if the
resolution passes it required a simple majority; if it failed, it needed 3:1".

I agree with Thomas on the general case.  Going up to a nearby thread:

> If I propose a resolution that says "This resolution is not a
> recission or modification of a Foundation Document.  The text of the
> DFSG shall remain intact just as is.  The main Debian archive may now
> include any software which it is legally permitted to distribute,
> whether it passes the tests of the DFSG or not," are you seriously
> saying that such a resolution requires only a majority vote?

If you take these "interpretive" GRs as not requiring 3:1, then you can
bypass the 3:1 requirement entirely merely by phrasing your changes as
an "interpretion", and you can phrase anything at all as an "interpretion".

Glenn Maynard

Reply to: