Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract
On 2/11/06, Simon Richter <Simon.Richter@hogyros.de> wrote:
> The problem case is where the option has majority, but fails
Another problem case is where we pass a GR that expresses
some judgement about past events.
For example, imagine a GR that says "we have never received any spam".
If that passes, what would it mean? Would it mean that the things
we received which we thought were span are not in fact spam?
Would it mean that the people who received spam are not part of the
"we" in question? Would it mean that the spam was inflicted on
us, rather than received by us?
Fundamentally, a GR is a proposal which we accept. It can only
change the future. We can't change the past, and we should not
pretend that we will try.
We should not be trying to hide past mistakes, even when we really
think that they are mistakes.
> It could then be argued that since it has majority, it
> constitutes proof that there should never have been a supermajority
> requirement and thus the simple majority suffices, or it could be argued
> that it failed supermajority, hence modifies a foundation document,
> hence requires supermajority. And it *will* be argued, no doubt.
Please notice that you used the phrase "should never have been".
If we avoid trying to claim that we can change the past, I think the
first part of the above becomes:
It could be argued that if <<an option receives a majority of the votes
preferring it to all option>> then <<a supermajority requirement for
that option was a mistake>>.