Re: The constitution and the social contract
>
> I beg to differ. Becoming a secretary does not mean one gives
> up ones right to an opinions (indeed, if it does, I'll strongly
> exhort people never to step up and volunteer for such a
> disenfranchising post).
The Debian Secretary plays a role similar to the traditional role of the
Chair. Like the Debian Secretary, the chair is responsible for
recognizing legitimate motions, ensuring the rules of debate are
followed, conducting votes, and reporting the results. The chair is
also the arbiter of the rules under which the organization operates
(subject to potential appeal to the floor), similar to the Debian
Secretary's role as final arbiter of the Debian Constitution.
Traditionally, the Chair is also supposed to maintain at least the
appearance of impartiality. The Chair does not speak for or against a
motion, nor does the Chair vote, unless a) it is a closed-ballot vote
or b) the vote would materially effect the outcome. This
"disenfranchisement" and gag order are expected and come with the job.
Since all Debian votes are conducted via closed balloting, I don't see
disenfranchisement as being an issue. The only remaining question is
the impartiality and "gag-order" rule.
> I think it is insulting to imply that the secretary can't keep
> his different hats separated enough to allow his own opinions to
> taint his performance as an office bearer in the project.
The problem with the Chair isn't so much as allowing his own opinions
to taint his performance, as allowing his own opinions from unduly
influencing the debate. I'm not so certain that that is such a problem
with the Debian Secretary, as long as the secretary is good about being
clear when he is speaking as a developer, and when he is speaking as
Secretary. The Secretary certainly doesn't seem to have the same sort of power
and influence as a meeting Chair would have.
> I am saddened to note that we have fallen to this level of distrust.
I'm not sure it's a level of distrust, as much as a desire for a sense
of impartiality. Raul, in conducting this vote, would have -three-
hats to juggle: developer, Chair of the Technical Committee, and Acting
Secretary. As developer, he should be able to speak his opinion and participate
freely. As Chair of the Tech Comm, he should speak only the decided
opinion of the Tech Comm, and as Secretary, his opinion shouldn't be a
factor.
It's not just if Raul can juggle those three hats, but if the rest of
us can understand when he is or isn't.
It's already been mentioned that -anything- Darren is likely to say now
is going to be taken as coming from the Secretary, so his ability to
state his own opinion separate from his official position is shot. Can
we avoid putting Raul into that same unfortunate position.
>
> manoj
> --
> If I'd known computer science was going to be like this, I'd never
> have given up being a rock 'n' roll star. Hirst
> Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
> 1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
> 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
>
>
> --
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-request@lists.debian.org
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
>
--
Buddha Buck bmbuck@14850.com
"Just as the strength of the Internet is chaos, so the strength of our
liberty depends upon the chaos and cacophony of the unfettered speech
the First Amendment protects." -- A.L.A. v. U.S. Dept. of Justice
Reply to: