On Tue, 2006-02-28 at 13:24 +0200, Kalle Kivimaa wrote: > Oliver Elphick <olly@lfix.co.uk> writes: > > If the Secretary's creative interpretation is allowed to stand, the > > proper description of what is happening can only be that this proposal > > adds a new foundation document. > > As you (and some others) are only arguing about the 3:1 supermajority > requirement, why don't you wait and see what happens in the vote? If > the option 3 doesn't win by a simple majority, there is no problem. If > it does win by a simple majority but not by a supermajority, you can > continue arguing the constitutional details.
I object to being asked to vote on a meaningless proposal. If I vote for 3, am I voting for an amendment to DFSG, Social Contract or Constitution? Which one of those? What exactly is the text of the change? I am a good deal more reluctant to vote for a fundamental change than for a position paper. To express the ballot choice in such a way automatically imposes biase. -- Oliver Elphick olly@lfix.co.uk Isle of Wight http://www.lfix.co.uk/oliver GPG: 1024D/A54310EA 92C8 39E7 280E 3631 3F0E 1EC0 5664 7A2F A543 10EA ======================================== Do you want to know God? http://www.lfix.co.uk/knowing_god.html -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
