[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]


Christopher Martin <chrsmrtn@debian.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 <chrsmrtn@debian.org> 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

Reply to: