Re: DFSG, GFDL, and position statementsd

[Thomas Bushnell BSG <tb@becket.net>]

Anton Zinoviev <anton@lml.bas.bg> writes:

> On Mon, Jan 30, 2006 at 01:47:02PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>> 
>> > but neither of those is grounds for imposing a 3:1
>> > supermajority requirement.  
>> 
>> The problem with this view is that it effectively would nullify the
>> 3:1 requirement if applied in some other cases.
>
> Not necessarily.  Acording to the Constitution "A Foundation Document
> is a document or statement regarded as critical to the Project's
> mission and purposes."  This seems to imply that the Foundation
> Documents take precedence over any "non-foundational" resolution.

>> For example, a resolution which said "All software hereby meets the
>> DFSG", and which passes by a slim majority, would effectively repeal
>> the DFSG. 
>
> In this case the Foundation Documents effectively invalidate any part
> of the resolution that contradicts with them.

I agree.  But this is opposed to what Steve Langasek was advancing, as
I understood it.