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 and
explicitely encouraged Anton to pursue his goal by the means of
proposing a clarifying explicit amendment 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, 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!
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/