Re: GFDL position statement ballot invalid
Oliver Elphick wrote:
> 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.
Well, dropping the amendment because of the consequences of the outcome
might be more difficult to formally justify than relying on the
judgement of the voters.
The problem with the amendment has been pointed out very early, yet
it received enough seconds and thus should be considered. I'm not sure
the Secretary can do much about it.
Thomas Viehmann, http://thomas.viehmann.net/