On Wed, Feb 08, 2006 at 07:56:45PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: > Nick Phillips <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > 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. > > Clearly if the 3:1 supermajority requirement means anything, it cannot > be obviated merely by a simple majority declaring "there is no > contradiction".
In the same line of thinking, it cannot be obviated merely by a single person declaring "there is a contradiction here". Even if that single person, by constitutional decree, is the one who "Adjudicates any disputes about interpretation of the constitution" (note, the constitution--not the DFSG, which is a "foundation document" but not the same thing as the constitution). -- Fun will now commence -- Seven Of Nine, "Ashes to Ashes", stardate 53679.4 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
