Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Wed, Feb 01, 2006 at 05:17:24PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: >> Suppose we have a case where a majority of the developers want to >> change the DFSG, but they don't have enough to win a 3:1 vote. >> >> All they need to do, if you are right, is proceed to declare that >> their change is really just an interpretation of whatever is already >> there. And, by hypothesis, they can present a claim that heck, a >> *majority* of developers say that their interpretation is certainly at >> least plausible (after all, they think it's *correct*). >> >> So, if you are right, the 3:1 supermajority requirement is entirely >> empty, because it is a trivial matter for people to circumvent it. > > Who is to say that one interpretation is any more valid than the other?
The Secretary, who has that job. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
