On Thursday 09 February 2006 21:27, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: > Christopher Martin <chrsmrtn@debian.org> writes: > > To impose the 3:1 requirement requires, beforehand, a judgment > > concerning the DFSG. Since no one has found a Secretarial basis for > > that power, it follows that to arbitrarily impose 3:1 supermajorities > > (when doing so on the basis of a personal interpretation of the DFSG) > > is not proper. That the 3:1 bit is mentioned in the constitution is > > quite irrelevant. > > The Secretary has the same basis as everyone else. The Constitution > never tells the ftpmasters to implement the DFSG either. There is a difference between implementing the accepted interpretation of the DFSG (i.e. the ftpmaster task) and deciding on what is the correct interpretation (the task of the developers as a whole, not the Secretary, and not the ftpmasters either, though they could start doing so, but would be subject to being overruled by the developers). > The Secretary *must* issue a correct ballot We're going in circles. Of course we want the Secretary to issue a correct ballot. But if the vote is to decide on DFSG interpretation, then the whole dispute is over what sorts of things are acceptable and unacceptable, correct and incorrect. And _that_ is not for the Secretary to decide, since then we might as well skip the vote and just ask the Secretary to tell us how the DFSG is correctly interpreted. > ; it his his determination > what correctness is in each and every case using the voting > procedure. For him to say "this requires a majority" requires him to > have decided that the resolution does not work a modification of the > DFSG. He cannot avoid making that determination, one way or the > other. A simple majority is clearly the default position, and the Secretary should not overrule that (in cases of DFSG interpretation). Christopher Martin
Attachment:
pgplgnJ2bHkkj.pgp
Description: PGP signature