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. 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. Let me add that I think that the Secretary succeeds at handling this vote in the most impartial way possible. It's not a glamorous job and Manoj deserves more appreciation for doing it than he currently gets on this list. Thank you, Manoj! Kind regards T. 1. http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2006/02/msg00000.html 2. http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2006/02/msg00006.html 3. I don't want to guess anyone's mind, it just looks like the emphasis on percieved "procedural mistakes" makes it impossible to exclude such a challenge. -- Thomas Viehmann, http://thomas.viehmann.net/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]