Re: The constitution and the social contract
> Hi,
> >>"Buddha" == Buddha Buck <bmbuck@14850.com> writes:
>
> Buddha> Traditionally, the Chair is also supposed to maintain at
> Buddha> least the appearance of impartiality. The Chair does not
> Buddha> speak for or against a motion, nor does the Chair vote,
> Buddha> unless a) it is a closed-ballot vote or b) the vote would
> Buddha> materially effect the outcome. This "disenfranchisement" and
> Buddha> gag order are expected and come with the job. Since all
> Buddha> Debian votes are conducted via closed balloting, I don't see
> Buddha> disenfranchisement as being an issue. The only remaining
> Buddha> question is the impartiality and "gag-order" rule.
>
> Show me. Show me the gag order that apparently comes with this
> job. The constitution is open to all of us. Chapter and verse, please.
OK, since the "gag order" of which I speak above is part of the
traditional job of the Chair, I'll quote Chapter and verse from the
Book of Rules that are Roberts (Newly Revised edition): Section 42,
subsection 6 (Rule Against Chair's Participation in Debate:
# If the presiding officer is a member of the society, he has -- as an
# individual -- the same _rights_ in debate as any other member; but
# the impartiality required of the chair in an assembly precludes his
# exercising these rights while he is presiding. Normally, especially
# in a large body, he should have nothing to say on the merits of
# pending questions. On certain occasions -- which should be extremely
# rare -- the presiding officer may believe that a crucial factor
# relating to such a question may have been overlooked and that his
# obligation as a member to call attention to the point outweighs his
# duty to preside at that time. To participate in debate, he must
# relinquish the chair ... The presiding officer who relinquished the
# chair then should not return to it until the pending main question
# has been disposed of, since he has shown himself to be a partisan as
# far as that particular matter is concerned. Indeed, unless the
# presiding officer is extremely sparing in leaving the chair to take
# part in debate, he may destroy members' confidence in the
# impartiality of his approach to the task of presiding.
As a general rule, I tried to be -very- careful separating the role of
Debian Secretary and the traditional role of Chair in my earlier reply.
The two positions have many similarities, but they also have many
differences. I know that Debian does not follow Robert's Rules of
Order, nor do I believe that Robert's Rules are directly applicable to
email-based debate and decision making. At best, the general
principals apply.
> I contend that there is a long standing tradition in Debian of
> people wearing multiple hats -- Ian J even had different email
> addresses (leader@debian.org) when he was speaking ex cathedra (if I
> may say without offence to the catholics amongst us). I alkso suggest
> that we are a) inteligent enough to recignize the difference between
> Raul speaking his opinion, and raul acting as a vote taker, and b)
> even if the secreatry, or, even, horrors, the DPL, actually voice
> (for shame) opinions, we can still hold up under the pressures and
> still, incredibly, hold an opinion of our own.
As I said below, I'm uncertain whether the traditional requirement for
impartiality on the part of the Chair should carry over to the Debian
Secretary.
I certainly would be much more comfortable with it if the Secretary
used some convention for distinguishing the roles.
"secretary@debian.org" for ex officio announcements would be a
reasonable method.
> If someone out there can't do that, please send me your name
> in private email; there are a lot of ballots I would like to stuff in
> the future, and your name would be very nice to have.
>
> >> 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.
>
> Buddha> The problem with the Chair isn't so much as allowing his own
> Buddha> opinions to taint his performance, as allowing his own
> Buddha> opinions from unduly influencing the debate. I'm not so
>
> That, sir, is an insult to the members of this forum. I have
> enough brains to be able to judge a situation on its merits, thank
> you very much, and am uhnlikely to succumb to blind puppy worship of
> the granduer attached to the job of the Debian secretary.
Please note that I was talking about the Chair, who is the one
traditionally gagged. And while I would expect Members of Parliament
to be able to judge a situation on its merits, and be unlikely to
succumb to blind puppy worship of the grandeur attached to the job of
the Speaker of the House of Commons, they, too, have invoked a similar
gag order on the Speaker. I presume that over time, they decided they
had reason to.
> If we have people so are so susceptible to suggestion that a
> pronouncement by the person perfoming the clerical duties of running
> a vote are likely to change their votes, hell, their opinion is not
> likely to be a great help anyway.
>
<unsnip>
Buddha> I'm not so
> Buddha> certain that that is such a problem with the Debian
> Buddha> Secretary, as long as the secretary is good about being clear
> Buddha> when he is speaking as a developer, and when he is speaking
> Buddha> as Secretary. The Secretary certainly doesn't seem to have
> Buddha> the same sort of power and influence as a meeting Chair would
> Buddha> have.
>
> Thank you. At last we seem to be back on the same wavelength.
I'm not certain we were on different wave-lengths. I think there was
an unintentional misunderstanding.
However, because of the traditional role that the Debian Secretary is
(in part) fulfilling, I can see why some might want the secretary to
refrain from joining in the partisan fray.
> >> I am saddened to note that we have fallen to this level of distrust.
>
> Buddha> I'm not sure it's a level of distrust, as much as a desire
> Buddha> for a sense of impartiality.
>
> I am mazed you can say that and not see that you are insulting
> Raul.
I'll let Raul judge if I was insulting him.
Raul? Do you feel I insulted you?
If so, I did not intend to do so, and I apologize.
Please note that I said a "sense of impartiality". I am perfectly
aware that an officer in an organization can act in an impartial
manner, yet be accused of being partisan.
It's similar to the concept of the "appearance of impropriety". Being
innocent of impropriety isn't enough for officials; they also have to
avoid looking like they may have impropriety.
> Buddha> Raul, in conducting this vote, would have -three- hats to
> Buddha> juggle: developer, Chair of the Technical Committee, and
> Buddha> Acting Secretary. As developer, he should be able to speak
> Buddha> his opinion and participate freely. As Chair of the Tech
> Buddha> Comm, he should speak only the decided opinion of the Tech
> Buddha> Comm, and as Secretary, his opinion shouldn't be a factor.
>
> umm, ok.
>
> Buddha> It's not just if Raul can juggle those three hats, but if the
> Buddha> rest of us can understand when he is or isn't.
>
> I think you over egagerate the difficulties. Raul, when he
> speaks as tech ctte charman, say things like the ctte has decided
> ..., which is a dead giveaway.
It's a dead giveaway to you, and to me, but even then, there are...
difficulties. The tech ctte chair says more ex officio than just the
decisions of the ctte. He also, as we are finding out, steps into the
Secretary's shoes when the Secretary steps out.
> And then, the secretary only counts
> votes and sends out ballots, so when there is an opinion in the mail,
> I cunningly deduce it si Raul the developer speaking.
Unless, of course, it is an opinion about a disputed interpretation of
the Constitution, in which case, is it Raul the developer, or Raul the
(Acting) Secretary?
You might, and I might, deduce properly, but as I noted below...
>
> Buddha> It's already been mentioned that -anything- Darren is likely
> Buddha> to say now is going to be taken as coming from the Secretary,
> Buddha> so his ability to state his own opinion separate from his
> Buddha> official position is shot. Can we avoid putting Raul into
> Buddha> that same unfortunate position?
>
> I think that official stements from the secretary stance has
> been wildly overstated. I woun't speak up after I had been castigated
> like Darrwen has been in this forum either.
While I admit that some of the castigation of Darren has been in
reaction to the performance (or lack thereof) of his clerical duties as
Secretary, the largest degree of castigation came about because of
decision, as Secretary, about how the vote on the proposal and
amendment should be conducted. There were even accusations that his
decision was partisan.
Was this unfair to Darren? Probably. Does it show, in part, why the
arbiter of debate rules is traditionally held to impartiality?
Probably again.
> Folks, can we please stop grand standing and get the bloody
> show on the road, please? <insert stories of how we got along
> intelligently in the good old days here>. I understand the need for
> process, now that we have grown beyond a cosy little group, but
> surely there is no need for gag orders and rules for the sake of
> rules, is there?
There is no need for rules for the sake of rules, but realize that Debian is
proceeding into uncharted Parliamentary Procedure. I do not know of
any historic example or study of how to conduct Parliamentary business
via an analog of an electronic mailing list. Procedures for
face-to-face meetings are well established -- Parliament has been
working on its rules for 785 years, Congress theirs for 226 years, and
Robert on his for 124 years -- everybody is making it up as they go
along for email proceedings. It's an interesting experiment, which I'm
eager to see how it works out.
>
> manoj
> --
> I used to be such a sweet sweet thing, 'til they got a hold of me, I
> opened doors for little old ladies, I helped the blind to see, I got
> no friends 'cause they read the papers, they can't be seen, With me,
> and I'm feelin' real shot down, And I'm, uh, feelin' mean, No more,
> Mr. Nice Guy, No more, Mr. Clean, No more, Mr. Nice Guy, They say
> "He's sick, he's obscene". My dog bit me on the leg today, my cat
> clawed my eyes, Ma's been thrown out of the social circle, and Dad
> has to hide, I went to church, incognito, when everybody rose, The
> reverend Smithy, he recognized me, And punched me in the nose, he
> said, (chorus) He said "You're sick, you're obscene". Alice Cooper,
> "No More Mr. Nice Guy"
> 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
--
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: