Stephen Gran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > This one time, at band camp, Thomas Bushnell BSG said: >> Christopher Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> > Yes. Because I would trust the developers to see the amendment as the >> > silly >> > fraud that it would be, and vote it down. We don't need the Secretary's >> > protection, believe it or not. >> >> Really? Even if a majority of the developers liked the idea? >> Remember, the 3:1 requirement is there to protect the remaining 25% >> against majorities as high as 74%. > > If 51% of developers vote for something that silly, there is not much we > can do to save the project, frankly. Your attitude that we need hand > holding and protection from ourselves is rather insulting.
This is not *my* attitude; it is the attitude of those who wanted a 3:1 supermajority for changes to the Foundation Documents. What did they mean by this, if not that a mere majority could not be trusted with such things? I was, in fact, *against* that change, though I didn't feel strongly about it, and did not vote. It is now the rule. I assume that those who put it forward thought a mere majority could not be trusted with such things. For the record, the proposer and seconders of that GR (2003-03): Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] Neil Roeth [EMAIL PROTECTED] Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] Matthias Urlichs [EMAIL PROTECTED] Joe Nahmias [EMAIL PROTECTED] Simon Law [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
