Re: GFDL position statement ballot invalid
On 2/28/06, Oliver Elphick <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> > Put more bluntly: the constitution does not require that the text
> > be editted for 3:1 supermajority requirement cases.
> Well, I am actually inhabiting the real world rather than the Debian
> parallel universe!
I'd appreciate it if you limited yourself to saying stuff that's accurate.
> An amendment to a document (in the real world) always implies a change
> of text; that is how you can tell that it has changed.
Sure -- if that option passes, the text of that option would be a
But that doesn't mean that the text of an existing foundation
document is getting edited.