Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract
On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 03:21:57PM +1300, Nick Phillips wrote:
> The vote is not a means of rescinding the DFSG or SC, nor even of
> contradicting them. It is the *only* means we have of determining
> whether something is in compliance with them. If a majority say that
> that is the case, then for our purposes, it is so.
This is silly. It seems like the constitution effectively says "if the
resolution passes it required a simple majority; if it failed, it needed 3:1".
I agree with Thomas on the general case. Going up to a nearby thread:
> If I propose a resolution that says "This resolution is not a
> recission or modification of a Foundation Document. The text of the
> DFSG shall remain intact just as is. The main Debian archive may now
> include any software which it is legally permitted to distribute,
> whether it passes the tests of the DFSG or not," are you seriously
> saying that such a resolution requires only a majority vote?
If you take these "interpretive" GRs as not requiring 3:1, then you can
bypass the 3:1 requirement entirely merely by phrasing your changes as
an "interpretion", and you can phrase anything at all as an "interpretion".
--
Glenn Maynard
Reply to: