Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract
On 2/10/06, Steve Langasek <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 11:37:59AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > And, likewise, you can't argue that the secretary must treat an option
> > as accepted when preparing the ballot. Treating controversial
> > general resolution proposals as if they'd already won the vote before
> > the vote begins would be the very abuse of power you're alluding to.
> So by this reasoning, is the original GR proposal not "controversial",
> whereas the other two amendments are? What's the key difference, if it
> isn't that the Project Secretary thinks one is correct and the others are
Rather, the controversial elements of that option does not conflict with
our historical interpretations of the DFSG.