[rain1@airmail.cc] Delete abortion joke

[Alexandre Oliva]

On May  8, 2018, Torvald Riegel <triegel@redhat.com> wrote:

> Look at the numbers we have at the moment.

Those "numbers" have very little to do with the advertised
"consensus-building community".

That attitude is even more authoritarian than Richard's.

For an individual abusive authority, there's often the possibility of
defense in numbers.

But when the abusive authority is also a majority, it's absolute power.

Democracies usually have fundamental rights and contra-majoritarian
powers to keep even the power of majorities in check.

There doesn't seem to be anything like that in our rules, is there?

Like, when objections are unreasonably dismissed by a majority, what
recourse is there?

The purpose/goal of the project is not set in stone, so if it could be
changed by a simple majority, or deviated from by a simple majority,
what recourse would GNU and the original project participants have?

-- 
Alexandre Oliva, freedom fighter    http://FSFLA.org/~lxoliva/
You must be the change you wish to see in the world. -- Gandhi
Be Free! -- http://FSFLA.org/   FSF Latin America board member
Free Software Evangelist|Red Hat Brasil GNU Toolchain Engineer