My Opinions
In this part of my mexican hat dance, I mostly wear my hat of Potential
Acting Secretary -- and perhaps a pink fedora.
On Sat, Nov 04, 2000 at 09:24:49PM -0500, Buddha Buck wrote:
> 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.
Not even that -- Robert's Rules of Order implement a half-duplex token
passing scheme for use in contentious situations. Email based discussions
are based on an underlying queuing scheme, and are better conducted with
an eye towards achieving informal consensus.
Yeah, a person in authority could do something inappropriate [*waves a
pink fedora around, to demonstrate*], but I think our efforts should be
aimed at solving real problems, not wrapping ourselves in red tape.
> 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.
And I?
Would you be more comfortable if I picked up another three debian.org
email addresses?
> 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.
Certainly: imagine the House of Commons, loaded with folks who have
gathered to lay down the law of the land (you know: tell people how to
live their lives) -- they've got this speaker, who gets to decide who gets
to talk next, and the speaker decides that this is going to be himself.
There could be debian analogies to this situation -- but they wouldn't
be the secretary voicing his opinion. Let's not even go there...
Debian's constitution is based on the concept that we're going to
behave in an intelligent fashion. We've got to.
We're not a government, and normal government behavior (lying, treachery,
murder, ... -- all in the name of the greater good, of course) is off
limits to us. I don't think it would be a good idea to even attempt to
pattern ourselves as if this is what we're about.
> I'll let Raul judge if I was insulting him.
>
> Raul? Do you feel I insulted you?
Nah. You can't insult someone who wears a pink fedora.
[Seriously -- I'm rather thick skinned, and wouldn't recognize an insult
if it came up and whapped me on the knuckles.]
> If so, I did not intend to do so, and I apologize.
If I've been insulted, I accept your apology.
> 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.
This isn't a church. Nor is it a government. Nor is this situation that
of the roman official who got rid of his wife because of rumors about her.
Moreover, where exessive formalism gets in the way of clear communication,
I think it's a bad thing.
> > 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...
Note that the constitution is mostly about that very process of collecting
votes.
What I *think* we're disupting here is my (now withdrawn) proposal
that the constitution be modified. Disintering it slightly, I'll note
that this was a proposal which would make formal Darren's constitutional
interpretation that the quorum for modifying DFSG is 3Q instead of just Q.
Also, I'll note that there was already a satisfactory proposal which
would achieve this end, and that I expect that there will be a vote on
that proposal, though of course that vote hasn't happened yet.
So, I ask you: in this context, what are we talking about? Are you
suggesting that, since I might have to step in for Darren, I have no
business proposing a constitutional ammendment? If so, I think I have
to disagree -- it doesn't even make sense.
Let's assume that I put on the Acting Secretary hat [waves hat around,
to demonstrate]. This would mean that I'd be the guy who is responsible
for interpreting our constitution. Ok... so imagine I'm wearing that
hat, and that I propose a constitutional ammendment which makes explicit
something which has already been said by the real Secretary -- this is
supposed to represent a misuse of my authority?
I just don't get it.
> 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.
Oh? There were three major sets of opinions, on the part of Real Debian
Developers, about the constitutionality of John's original proposal
(from months ago -- about pulling non-free out of the social contract).
Darren picked an interpretation which was closest to the middle ground
(at least, that's the way I see it). But, it was a contentious decision.
Anyone who makes a decision in a contentious situation is going to take
some flak for it. And, anyone who has the potential for making such a
decision who elects not to do so is likely to take even more flak for it.
The existence of flak only proves that it was a contentious situation --
nothing more.
[stepping over to a different message]:
> > Thomas> 1: What is the status of the putative ballot announced last month?
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> writes:
> > Why can't we just forget the mishaps of the past and focus on
> > finding out what people want to do?
On Sat, Nov 04, 2000 at 07:03:22PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> I'd love to! So how about a statement from the Secretary like "that
> ballot doesn't count, don't worry about it"? "status" doesn't mean
> "official results", it just means some explanation of whether that
> vote will be ignored, posted, or what. That's all. It's a very easy
> question. It takes Darren saying "that ballot was a false start; no
> votes will be published". Very simple to say. But Not Said. For all I
> know, Darren will emerge from the shadows next week and publish the
> results of that ballot as a done deal.
Uh.. I thought I already said: Darren wants to make sure that he makes
the right decision on this issue. It's important to him. [But that
doesn't mean that this is the only issue on his plate.]
For now, the decision hasn't been made.
> > Thomas> 2: Why is the vote page not even up do date?
> >
> > No one has had time to work on it? the archives of -vote are
> > not exactly secret, you know.
>
> Well, there's been rather a long time for people to work on it. If
> the relevant person is overworked, then by all means, somebody else
> should be found to do so. Fortunately, our Constitution wisely
> provides for this eventuality.
Sure, but I'm not going to just jump in because Darren isn't available
for a day or two. In fact, I wouldn't do anything formal until some
time next week -- at the earliest.
I can't speak for Darren, and I'm going to re-read the constitution a
time or two before conducting any vote, but at the moment I'm inclined
to focus on Branden's and Manoj's proposals from a couple weeks ago.
Oddly enough, none of the current discussion seems aimed at adding to
those proposals. I'm inclined to take that as meaning that people are
happy with those options. And, none of this should be taken as meaning
that I'm putting more thought into this than Darren.
On Sat, Nov 04, 2000 at 06:59:44PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> I said that, in my opinion, it would be unwise for the Interpreter Of
> The Constitution to become an advocate for one side or another when
> issues are likely (indeed, have) come up in that regard.
This seems to say that you don't want the secretary to be engaging in
informal discussion?
> I would much prefer that the Interpreter Of The Constitution get down
> to brass tacks, and do some Interpreting and Issuing Of Ballots and
> Announcing Of Results.
Speed before correctness? Since when has that been the Debian Way?
--
Raul
Reply to: