Re: Summary of voting irregularities
Buddha Buck <bmbuck@14850.com> writes:
> Personally, I agree that the constitution does not explicitly provide
> for a 3:1 supermajority to modify the Social Contract. But it doesn't
Indeed, it explicitly provides the opposite: §A.6(2)
> explicitly provide for -any- method to modify the Social Contract. It
It explicitly provides that: §4.1(5)
> explicitly provides for a 3:1 majority to modify the Constitution, and
> it explicitly provides for the "issuing" of new non-technical
> documents. I see four possible ways to interpret that:
> 1. The Social Contract cannot be modified under the Debian Constitution.
This is contradictory with §4.1(5).
> 2. Modifying the Social Contract is implicitly issuing a new Social
> Contract, and thus allowed with "simple" majority.
Indeed, this is the case.
> 3. Modifying the Social Contract is implicitly modifying the
> Constitution, and thus allowed with a 3:1 supermajority
There is no basis in the Constitution for this position and it is
negated by §4.1(5).
> 4. Modifying the Social Contract is implicitly allowed via some other
> clause in the Constitution no one has mentioned yet, and the voting
> requirements thus determined by that clause.
I see no other such clause, and nobody else has mentioned such.
> It's a hard choice to make. Good arguments could be made, and were,
> for 1, 2 or 3 (dunno about 4, though). Because of the ambiguity,
> Branden and Manoj have both proposed amendments that would clarify the
> issue -- not necessarily change it, but to remove the ambiguity.
Manoj's proposal WOULD change it.
> The Secretary chose 3.
The one that most directly contradicts what is actually in the
Constitution at that.
> >2. Confusion has surrounded the ballot regarding aj's amendment.
>
> There has been that. I don't know how -that's- gonna be resolved.
I don't know either.
> >3. There has been a suggestion that because of the Secretary's
> >inaction, the proposal and the amendment have expired. This places us
> >in unknown territory since the Secretary already issued a ballot.
> >Furthermore, it leaves us in a nasty situation whereby a single person
> >can kill any resolution by ignoring it.
>
> My personal opinion is that the suggestion is untenable on it's face.
> True, there has been considerable time with no debate on the proposal,
> but a Call for Votes was made, indicating that people were ready to
> vote and bring closure. The failure of a parliamentary officer to
> perform his duties should not kill a valid proposal.
I'm yet unsure whether it's correct or not, but it is at least a
question that the Secretary must address.
I agree that the Secretary's failure should not kill the proposal but
I am unsure of whether the Constituion actually allows him to do so.
--
John Goerzen <jgoerzen@complete.org> www.complete.org
Sr. Software Developer, Progeny Linux Systems, Inc. www.progenylinux.com
#include <std_disclaimer.h> <jgoerzen@progenylinux.com>
Reply to: