On Thu, 2 Feb 2006 20:13:36 +1100, Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Mon, Jan 30, 2006 at 01:47:02PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>> 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.
> How can we measure "implicitly"? Anything that is not explicit is
> obviously open to interpretation. It seems that the GFDL's
> problematic clauses, other than invariant sections, don't explicitly
> violate the DFSG.
If you try to pass a resolution which conflicts a foundation
document without explicitly editing the foundation document, I
suppose.
> Hence we just need to choose our official interpretation, unless you
> want to modify the text to make it explicit (one way or the other
> other). Declaring our interpretation doesn't mean modifying the
> text, and doesn't need 3:1.
This is true for ambiguous statements in foundation documents,
yes. But making a resolution that changes s statement explicitly made
in a foundation document is a horse of a different color.
manoj
--
A bug in the code is worth two in the documentation.
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
