Christopher Martin wrote: > Therefore, no modification of the DFSG would be required after the passage > of the amendment, since it would have been decided by the developers that > there was no inconsistency.
If a simple majority can yell, "there is no inconsistency" then the 3:1 requirement has little meaning. I think it'd be reasonable to request that people who believe [0] is wrong should produce reasoned arguments against it; to the best of my knowledge (and memory, of course), no one has done so. Without a reasoned argument for why the GFDL w/o Invariant Sections is free, I don't see how the Secretary can consider the amendment anything else than an attempt to change a foundation document, and either rule it out of order or require the supermajority. [0] http://people.debian.org/~srivasta/Position_Statement.xhtml -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
