On Wed, Feb 08, 2006 at 11:50:51AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: > On 2/8/06, Nick Phillips <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > The GR as amended might appear to contradict the Social Contract, or the > > DFSG, but it certainly *does not* modify them, and hence cannot be said to > > require a supermajority. > > This comment seems insincere.
Down that road lies tit-for-tat ad-hominem. > If the GR is adopted by Debian, there is no significant difference > between "contradicts the foundation documents" and "modifies > the foundation documents". First of all, you're assuming that it does contradict the foundation documents. It clearly asserts otherwise, and one might assume that developers voting for it would agree with that. If it won a majority, it would therefore seem to be the case that the majority of developers agreed with it. In which case those asserting that it needed supermajority wouldn't have a leg to stand on. So we'd be in a right mess. Second, you're completely wrong. Of course there is a difference between modifying the foundation documents and appearing to contradict them. One modifies them and the other, well, doesn't. Cheers, Nick -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
