On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 08:34:53PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > On 8 Feb 2006, Anthony Towns stated: > > Personally, I hope and trust that the developer body are honourable > > enough to note vote for a proposal they think contradicts the social > > contract or DFSG; and I don't see much point to all the implications > > that we're not that honourable and need to have the secretary's > > adult supervision. I don't see much point to all the grumbling about > > the secretary's supervision either though -- if we're acting like > > adult's anyway, that's hardly a problem, is it? > I find it strange you couch this in terms of honour and > supervision. I do not understand how this can be; and I certainly do > not hold this view, since I do not even understand it. > > I view this a ballot correctness issue. The ballot should be > one that does not lead to contradictory situations,or else, in my > opinion, the ballot is buggy. That view, namely "other people may propose ballots that aren't good enough, and it's my job to stop that", is precisely a supervisory one. Personally, I'd rather the secretarial role be as automatic as possible, even to the point where votes would be run without any human intervention. I've thought about that before, but I don't have the inclination to write any code for it. Cheers, aj
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature