Christopher Martin <firstname.lastname@example.org> schrieb am 10.02.06 05:13:11:
> On Thursday 09 February 2006 20:26, Raul Miller wrote:
> > On 2/9/06, Christopher Martin <email@example.com> wrote:
> > > But why does the Secretary get to decide whether this barrier should be
> > > set or not?
> > The constitution says:
> > "... the final decision on the form of ballot(s) is the Secretary's -
> > see 7.1(1),
> > 7.1(3) and A.3(4)."
> > I think that's pretty clear.
> Sure, no one denies the Secretary the power to conduct votes within
> procedural guidelines.
> > I think it's pretty clear here that the Secretary is not exceeding his
> > powers in any way, shape or form.
> But it doesn't follow from the "final decision on the form of ballot(s)"
> that the Secretary is the DFSG arbiter. You'd think the constitution would
> have mentioned that.
> For instance, if the Secretary refused to include a GR amendment in a vote
> because he/she hated the proposer and merely declared it "just plain
> stupid", we can probably all agree that the Secretary would be acting
> improperly, despite his/her constitutional power to decide the shape of
> votes. So "final decision on the form of ballot(s)" is not some limitless
> purview. And since the constitution explicitly grants developers broad
> powers over defining documents, issuing statements, etc. (but not the
> Secretary) it seems that the most sound interpretation of the constitution
> is that the Secretary is not the DFSG arbiter, and should allow matters of
> interpretation of the DFSG to be settled by simple vote amongst the
> developers. This means refraining from imposing supermajorities on disputes
> over DFSG interpretation, despite strong personal views.
> Christopher Martin
Verschicken Sie romantische, coole und witzige Bilder per SMS!
Jetzt bei WEB.DE FreeMail: http://f.web.de/?mc=021193