Re: GFDL position statement ballot invalid
On Tue, 2006-02-28 at 13:24 +0200, Kalle Kivimaa wrote:
> Oliver Elphick <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> > If the Secretary's creative interpretation is allowed to stand, the
> > proper description of what is happening can only be that this proposal
> > adds a new foundation document.
> As you (and some others) are only arguing about the 3:1 supermajority
> requirement, why don't you wait and see what happens in the vote? If
> the option 3 doesn't win by a simple majority, there is no problem. If
> it does win by a simple majority but not by a supermajority, you can
> continue arguing the constitutional details.
I object to being asked to vote on a meaningless proposal. If I vote
for 3, am I voting for an amendment to DFSG, Social Contract or
Constitution? Which one of those? What exactly is the text of the
change? I am a good deal more reluctant to vote for a fundamental
change than for a position paper.
To express the ballot choice in such a way automatically imposes biase.
Oliver Elphick email@example.com
Isle of Wight http://www.lfix.co.uk/oliver
GPG: 1024D/A54310EA 92C8 39E7 280E 3631 3F0E 1EC0 5664 7A2F A543 10EA
Do you want to know God? http://www.lfix.co.uk/knowing_god.html