[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: GFDL position statement ballot invalid


Oliver Elphick wrote:
> 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.

Manoj was absolutely clear that he sees the drastic interpretation
change as a change to the DFSG and brought up the problem[1] and
explicitely encouraged Anton to pursue his goal by the means of
proposing a clarifying explicit amendment[2] on February 1st.

Given that Anton's mail suggests that the Secretary's asessment of the
3:1 supermajority requirement might be subject to a challenge[3], it
seems that the Secretary took a very prudent route here.

Let me add that I think that the Secretary succeeds at handling this
vote in the most impartial way possible. It's not a glamorous job and
Manoj deserves more appreciation for doing it than he currently gets on
this list. Thank you, Manoj!

Kind regards


1. http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2006/02/msg00000.html
2. http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2006/02/msg00006.html
3. I don't want to guess anyone's mind, it just looks like the emphasis
   on percieved "procedural mistakes" makes it impossible to exclude
   such a challenge.
Thomas Viehmann, http://thomas.viehmann.net/

Reply to: