Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Because the constitution does not specify a standard for sanity or > rationality. It may be *irrational* for the project to claim that the GFDL > with invariant sections meets the DFSG's requirements, and the passing of > such a GR might leave me with no confidence whatsoever in the judgement of > this project, but neither of those is grounds for imposing a 3:1 > supermajority requirement.
The problem with this view is that it effectively would nullify the 3:1 requirement if applied in some other cases. For example, a resolution which said "All software hereby meets the DFSG", and which passes by a slim majority, would effectively repeal the DFSG. But under the view you give, such contradictions are merely irrational. If the 3:1 requirement is to mean anything, it must mean that things which explicitly *or implicitly* modify foundation documents must receive a 3:1 majority. It certainly cannot be limited only to things which explicitly modify the text. Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
