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

Re: GFDL position statement ballot invalid

On Tue, 2006-02-28 at 18:36 +0100, Thomas Viehmann wrote:
> Hi,
> 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.

That is meant as a statement of fact, not a personal attack.  If
something is listed as a constitutional change it will certainly bias
against it those who dislike such changes.

> 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.

I'm sorry, but I think the current ballot is a mess.  If Amendment B is
passed, we will supposedly have changed the DFSG or Social Contract, but
the actual text of both will remain unchanged.  The text of the
amendment is not listed as a foundation document in itself.  If a future
GR should propose to amend the text of the current amendment (once
passed) will that also be an amendment of a fundamental document?  It
won't be listed as one in the constitution.  This is not prudence but a
recipe for chaos.

I don't object to Manoj's determining that this is a modification of a
fundamental document, but I think he should then require the text of the
amendment to be changed so as actually to accomplish what he deems it to
be doing.

Of course, he may -- possibly correctly -- be anticipating that
Amendment B will not get a 3:1 majority, in which case there won't be
any future problems with it.

> Let me add that I think that the Secretary succeeds at handling this
> vote in the most impartial way possible.

I'm sorry to have implied otherwise. 

> It's not a glamorous job and
> Manoj deserves more appreciation for doing it than he currently gets on
> this list. Thank you, Manoj!


Oliver Elphick                                          olly@lfix.co.uk
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

Reply to: