Russ Allbery <r...@debian.org> writes: > Ben Finney <ben+deb...@benfinney.id.au> writes: > > Russ Allbery <r...@debian.org> writes: > >> Ben Finney <ben+deb...@benfinney.id.au> writes: > > >>> Are you saying the statement “this proposal conflicts with the > >>> foundation documents” can be true for some people simultaneously > >>> with being false for other people? > > >> Of course it can be! That would only not be true if we had unanimity > >> over the meaning of the foundation documents, which we clearly do not, > > > So, in effect, you advocate the position that “the foundation > > documents”refers to a different set of documents depending on who > > is being asked? > > No. That's an absurd interpretation of what I said.
Yet I can't disambiguate it from this: > > The only way I can see that power being unnecessary is if nothing > > hinges on whether a proposal conflicts with foundation documents. > > If, on the other hand, anything *does* hinge on that determination, > > someone needs to *make* that determination in cases where actions > > depend on it. > > And who makes that decision has already been explained at *ridiculous* > length on this mailing list, so I'll assume you already know how that > works. I presume this is referring to the practice of leaving the determination to each individual person acting. Which, in effect, is allowing that the foundation documents have a different meaning for each person and none of them are wrong. Where have I misunderstood you, and how do you resolve this apparent absurdity? -- \ “The reason we come up with new versions is not to fix bugs. | `\ It's absolutely not.” —Bill Gates, 1995-10-23 | _o__) | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org