On Tue, Feb 28, 2006 at 12:17:09PM +0000, Oliver Elphick wrote: > On Tue, 2006-02-28 at 13:24 +0200, Kalle Kivimaa wrote: > > Oliver Elphick <[email protected]> writes: > > > If the Secretary's creative interpretation is allowed to stand, the > > > proper description of what is happening can only be that this proposal > > > adds a new foundation document. > > > > As you (and some others) are only arguing about the 3:1 supermajority > > requirement, why don't you wait and see what happens in the vote? If > > the option 3 doesn't win by a simple majority, there is no problem. If > > it does win by a simple majority but not by a supermajority, you can > > continue arguing the constitutional details. > > I object to being asked to vote on a meaningless proposal. If I vote > for 3, am I voting for an amendment to DFSG, Social Contract or > Constitution? Which one of those? What exactly is the text of the > change? I am a good deal more reluctant to vote for a fundamental > change than for a position paper. > > To express the ballot choice in such a way automatically imposes biase.
Bah, the clause 3 is trying to change the perceived meaning of the DFSG, as such it is a change of the DFSG in spirit even if it would be doubtful that it would mean a modification of the text of the DFSG. As such, it is logical that it needs a 3:1 super-majority. And anyone claiming the contrary may just not be honest about it :) </joke> Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
