On Wed, Feb 08, 2006 at 07:56:45PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: > Nick Phillips <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > documents. It clearly asserts otherwise, and one might assume that > > developers voting for it would agree with that. If it won a majority, > > it would therefore seem to be the case that the majority of developers > > agreed with it. In which case those asserting that it needed > > supermajority wouldn't have a leg to stand on. So we'd be in a right > > mess. > Clearly if the 3:1 supermajority requirement means anything, it cannot > be obviated merely by a simple majority declaring "there is no > contradiction".
Way back in highschool, I was told that you shouldn't use the word "clearly" because it's a sure sign that you aren't actually able to backup the assertion you're about to make. In any event, there is in fact a meaning in that case: the 3:1 suerpmajority would still apply to issues where the majority of developers felt that the proposed resolution did contradict the social contract or DFSG -- and that the social contract/DFSG happened to be wrong. Personally, I hope and trust that the developer body are honourable enough to note vote for a proposal they think contradicts the social contract or DFSG; and I don't see much point to all the implications that we're not that honourable and need to have the secretary's adult supervision. I don't see much point to all the grumbling about the secretary's supervision either though -- if we're acting like adult's anyway, that's hardly a problem, is it? Cheers, aj
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature