On Wednesday 01 February 2006 18:22, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: > "Wesley J. Landaker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > I really see this as a push to kill a valid interpretation by forcing > > it to have a supermajority. I would feel the same way even if the > > tables were turned in what option was being made to meet 3:1. > > Are you saying that Manoj is acting in bad faith?
I have no way of knowing, but I sure hope that he isn't. Having a 3:1 supermajority is good for Manojs stated personal opinion on the subject, so there is at least the appearance of a conflict of interest. I only started contributing to this thread in the first place when Manoj called for input, and the first reply I got from him sounded firey and closed-minded. Since then, I have decided that the best I can do try to clearly state my views and urge Manoj to make a good decision. To be clear, I have certainly never accused Manoj of doing anything wrong, but he is in the position to do it if he wanted to. Apparently, you didn't see this message from me: On Wednesday 01 February 2006 18:23, Wesley J. Landaker wrote: > Manoj, I really don't see how you can believe that this proposal is > "novel and unconventional", but if you really, *honestly* believe that, > and you are not pushing a 3:1 because of your personal views about the > GFDL, I guess I understand your position. > > Anyway, I don't think I agree with your take on this proposal, but I do > agree that you should do your job as secretary as honestly as and > objectively as possible. If you are truely doing that then I support you > even if I think you are wrong. =) Even if I don't agree with Manoj, I will obviously support him in his role as secrectary as long as he is honestly doing his best effort to be objective. Really at this point if he tells me straight out that he is, I'll believe him. -- Wesley J. Landaker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> OpenPGP FP: 4135 2A3B 4726 ACC5 9094 0097 F0A9 8A4C 4CD6 E3D2
pgpGJyQDMilkZ.pgp
Description: PGP signature
