Re: GFDL position statement ballot invalid
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Subject: Re: GFDL position statement ballot invalid
- From: Manoj Srivastava <email@example.com>
- Date: Sun, 05 Mar 2006 07:39:32 -0600
- Message-id: <[🔎] firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Mail-followup-to: email@example.com
- In-reply-to: <firstname.lastname@example.org> (Oliver Elphick's message of "Tue, 28 Feb 2006 18:53:04 +0000")
- References: <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <44048A32.email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org>
On 28 Feb 2006, Oliver Elphick uttered the following:
> On Tue, 2006-02-28 at 18:36 +0100, Thomas Viehmann wrote:
> 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 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
> 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.
Umm, no. The position statement shall be published at the same
time as the modified foundation documents (modified so that the
position statement and the foundation documents are clearly in
synch). The wording can be hashed out quite quickly, I think, since
the position of the project would be quite clear then.
> 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.
If the future amendment changes the meaning of the then
clarified foundation documents, then the foundation documents would
need to be modified to reflect the new position of the project.
> 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.
I had invited wording for such proposed changes to clarify the
If God had intended Men to Smoke, He would have put Chimneys in their
Manoj Srivastava <email@example.com> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C