Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract
On 2/11/06, Glenn Maynard <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> 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".
The only silliness is the verb tenses. Once some concept passes
supermajority it doesn't need to pass again, because it has already
The real problem here is that the option in question uses poor grammar.
For that reason alone, I think this option would be bad for the project.
It's already spawning arguments because people think they agree
with the option, but it's not clear what agreement with the option means.
Fortunately, or unfortunately, our resolution mechanism for this kind of
problem involves voting. Personally: I am reasonably confident that most
of the developers will vote against something like this: where the grammar
of the proposal is so poor that it spawns grammar based arguments about
what it would mean if it were accepted -- before it's even voted on.