Re: GFDL position statement ballot invalid
Oliver Elphick <email@example.com> writes:
> Nevertheless, no foundation document is actually being changed.
> Therefore either this is a new foundation document, which requires a
> change to the constitution, or it does not require a supermajority.
The clause being changed by choice number 3 is clause number 10. It
would add a new license that the project definitely considers to be
free. There, happy? :)
> If choice 3 gets a majority but not by 3:1, whose view of the legalities
> will prevail?
The secretary's, as per 7.1.3. Feel free to propose a GR to override
On a related topic, should the constitution define that overriding a
decision by the secretary conserning 7.1.3 requires a 3:1
supermajority? Currently it is entirely possible for a simple majority
of the developers to bypass the constitution.
* Sufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology (T.P) *
* PGP public key available @ http://www.iki.fi/killer *