Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract
On Sun, Feb 12, 2006 at 10:07:23AM +1300, Nick Phillips wrote:
> On the contrary, it makes perfect sense. If it makes part of the
> constitution look silly or pointless to you, then there are at least
> two other possible sources of that silliness.
I think this circling argument is silly, not the constitution.
> > 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".
> I actually don't think that's the case. But let's assume that it
> is. The fact that you can get around the 3:1 requirement by wording
> your GR appropriately merely shows the 3:1 requirement (or its
> wording) to have been inadequately thought through -- it certainly
> doesn't magically extend it (a particularly bad idea if it seems like
> it might not have been adequately thought through in the first place).
This "it's only an interpretation! not 3:1!" is merely word-game rules-
lawyering to try to create a loophole in the constitution. Those loopholes
can always be created, if everyone is allowed their own interpretation of
the rules; that's not an indication of lack of forethought.
Fortunately, as is typically the case, everyone is not allowed their own
interpretation of the rules.