Re: Election Dates

[Mike Goldman <whig@by.net>]

Wichert Akkerman wrote:

> Previously john@dhh.gt.org wrote:
> > Dale Scheetz writes:
> > > In any case, no one is suggesting that we ignore the constitution, only
> > > that it be interpreted in a more reasoned fashion.
> >
> > And your interpretation is just that.
>
> I have to comment on this: according to the constitution any
> interpretation that is made by the project secretary is final, according
> to section 7.1, point 3 of the constitution.

Actually, it says he can adjudicate disputes, not issue interpretations in the
absence of a dispute.  Furthermore, by 7.3, paragraph 1:  "The Project Secretary
should make decisions which are fair and reasonable, and preferably consistent
with the consensus of the Developers."

Nor, indeed, does the constitution make clear that the secretary's decision is
final.  Adjudication does not necessarily mean no possibility of appeal.

What began as a fairly trivial annoyance, is beginning to escalate into our first
constitutional crisis here.  I urge Darren to reconsider his interpretation.
Alternatively, a constitutional amendment may need to be proposed to clarify the
limits of or appellate procedure from an appointed secretary's determination.