Le samedi 13 décembre 2008 à 22:09 +0100, Robert Millan a écrit : > For the record, I think the Secretary's interpretation of the Constitution is > perfectly correct. Whether it is correct or not is irrelevant here. The Secretary is deciding this without justification, in an inconsistent way (similar options get a different treatment), and without any thought for following the constitution itself. For example, the Secretary explained that option 6 permanently modifies the foundation documents, but it doesn’t specify how. If it does modify them, where are the modifications? If it doesn’t, why does it require 3:1 majority? If it is not acceptable as is, the Secretary should have *refused to conduct the vote on it* so that a workable proposal could have been issued. If this option wins, how will we manage the situation? For the GFDL GR, this was even worse: the Secretary decided that “GFDL is free” required 3:1 while “GFDL without invariant sections is free” did not. The only reason is that he couldn’t stand the latter proposal and decided to make it impossible to pass. Note that I was strongly against that proposal – but even while agreeing with Manoj on the topic, I cannot approve such a manipulation of the vote. > So let's go back to 2003, when this started. It seems this super-majority > requirement wasn't a big problem to you at the time: > > http://www.debian.org/vote/2003/gr_sec415_tally.txt I don’t have a problem with the 3:1 requirement. If I were to propose any constitutional amendment on this topic, it would be to make explicit for GR proposals when they override or modify foundation documents, and only let the Secretary a power of rejection based on strong evidence the proposal doesn’t conform. > But I ask you one thing: Do not blame the Secretary for your mistakes, > he's just doing his job. No, he’s outrageously abusing his position. -- .''`. : :' : We are debian.org. Lower your prices, surrender your code. `. `' We will add your hardware and software distinctiveness to `- our own. Resistance is futile.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Ceci est une partie de message =?ISO-8859-1?Q?num=E9riquement?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?_sign=E9e?=