Re: GFDL position statement ballot invalid
On Tue, Feb 28, 2006 at 12:17:09PM +0000, Oliver Elphick wrote:
> On Tue, 2006-02-28 at 13:24 +0200, Kalle Kivimaa wrote:
> > Oliver Elphick <email@example.com> 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.
Bah, the clause 3 is trying to change the perceived meaning of the DFSG, as
such it is a change of the DFSG in spirit even if it would be doubtful that
it would mean a modification of the text of the DFSG.
As such, it is logical that it needs a 3:1 super-majority.
And anyone claiming the contrary may just not be honest about it :) </joke>