Re: Election Dates
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On 17-Dec-98 Mike Goldman wrote:
> Wichert Akkerman wrote:
>
>> 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."
The people who've stated this are correct and the constitution here is clear.
Just so there is no confusion, if I were to have invoked that (or any)
section/point in the constitution. I would have sited it. It's not required
but the constitution but I'd like it to be common practice.. atleast for me..
to site sections when the statement is "official" based on that section. Don't
know if I will, but I'd like to think I will ;)
> What began as a fairly trivial annoyance, is beginning to escalate into our
> first
> constitutional crisis here. I urge Darren to reconsider his interpretation.
Consider my interpretation reconsidered. I know I was taking a strict route
but I am to make a mistake (and I will) I'd rather err on the side of too
strict. It's always easier to loosen up then tighten up. Since:
1) The constitution isn't clear on whether campaigning can be conducted during
the first three weeks of the campaign cycle and
2) It would be difficult truly enforce such a ban
I'll rephrase my earlier comments to be a suggestion and make it clear it is
from me as a concerned citizen/developer not Project Secretary. I would still
rather see "campaigning" in any organized sense held off of, personally, but the
choice is up to the individual canidates and all the canidates as a whole.
> Alternatively, a constitutional amendment may need to be proposed to clarify
> the
> limits of or appellate procedure from an appointed secretary's determination.
I'm not sure that, by itself, is necessary. There is always "peer review", a
"general resolution" and if those fail, a constitutional "ammendment" to
clarify the will of the Developers.
=========================================================================
* http://benham.net/index.html <>< *
* -------------------- * -----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK----- ---------------*
* Darren Benham * Version: 3.1 *
* <gecko@benham.net> * GCS d+(-) s:+ a29 C++$ UL++>++++ P+++$ L++>++++*
* KC7YAQ * E? W+++$ N+(-) o? K- w+++$(--) O M-- V- PS-- *
* Debian Developer * PE++ Y++ PGP++ t+ 5 X R+ !tv b++++ DI+++ D++ *
* <gecko@debian.org> * G++>G+++ e h+ r* y+ *
* -------------------- * ------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------ ---------------*
=========================================================================
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3a
Charset: noconv
iQCVAwUBNoDUdrbps1lIfUYBAQE2ygP/b/7rLcKto79TqTB4tmNMvOCjSUTfGA5k
YnSICYJVy64J4vcSHZC7GX0tCV2lpB+DE2O7exDWjxDhLXp3aiRZqqNrFctpKvkZ
IZeD5kq0vTGZH2QFXneuDMGyQhC6lk0DKDM2+Gt+aoxRcTN+UjOHW+PvG7tXSHBH
bluhQ4dbZbo=
=Vvh3
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply to: