Re: Election Dates
On Thu, 17 Dec 1998, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> Previously firstname.lastname@example.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.
What the section actually says is:
"Adjudicates any disputes about interpretation of the constitution."
While I can see how you might interpret it the way you have, I would call
on normal legal proceedures for this case.
Adjudicate means to act as a Judge, not the prosecutor or the defense. In
this case the dispute came about from a unilateral decission on the part
of the Secretary. Judges do not usually make such legal judgements until
the matter is brought before them. (you might argue the Secretary
brought it before himself) It is considered ethical and proper for such a
judge, so intimately involved with the decission, to remove himself from
the proceedings and let another judge decide on the merrits of the case.
In this particular case those who disagree with the Secretary do not
consider this an interpretation as much as an ammendment by the Secretary
to the rules without a vote. The fact that the dispute is between the
Secretary and some of the developers makes it inappropriate for the
Secretary to exersize his power as Adjudicator.
_-_-_-_-_- Author of "The Debian Linux User's Guide" _-_-_-_-_-_-
aka Dale Scheetz Phone: 1 (850) 656-9769
Flexible Software 11000 McCrackin Road
e-mail: email@example.com Tallahassee, FL 32308
_-_-_-_-_-_- If you don't see what you want, just ask _-_-_-_-_-_-_-