On Tue, 2006-02-28 at 18:36 +0100, Thomas Viehmann wrote: > Hi, > > Oliver Elphick wrote: > > 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.
That is meant as a statement of fact, not a personal attack. If something is listed as a constitutional change it will certainly bias against it those who dislike such changes. > Manoj was absolutely clear that he sees the drastic interpretation > change as a change to the DFSG and brought up the problem[1] and > explicitely encouraged Anton to pursue his goal by the means of > proposing a clarifying explicit amendment[2] on February 1st. > > Given that Anton's mail suggests that the Secretary's asessment of the > 3:1 supermajority requirement might be subject to a challenge[3], it > seems that the Secretary took a very prudent route here. I'm sorry, but I think the current ballot is a mess. If Amendment B is passed, we will supposedly have changed the DFSG or Social Contract, but the actual text of both will remain unchanged. The text of the amendment is not listed as a foundation document in itself. If a future GR should propose to amend the text of the current amendment (once passed) will that also be an amendment of a fundamental document? It won't be listed as one in the constitution. This is not prudence but a recipe for chaos. I don't object to Manoj's determining that this is a modification of a fundamental document, but I think he should then require the text of the amendment to be changed so as actually to accomplish what he deems it to be doing. Of course, he may -- possibly correctly -- be anticipating that Amendment B will not get a 3:1 majority, in which case there won't be any future problems with it. > Let me add that I think that the Secretary succeeds at handling this > vote in the most impartial way possible. I'm sorry to have implied otherwise. > It's not a glamorous job and > Manoj deserves more appreciation for doing it than he currently gets on > this list. Thank you, Manoj! Agreed. -- 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]
