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

Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract

Meh, -devel dropped.

On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 10:27:03PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On 10 Feb 2006, Anthony Towns outgrape:
> > That view, namely "other people may propose ballots that aren't good
> > enough, and it's my job to stop that", is precisely a supervisory
> > one.
>         The secretary is responsible for running the vote, and also
>  has the final decision for the form of the ballot. It would be remiss
>  of me to let a ballot go by which i consider incorrect.

That's the way you see it, and it's an entirely fair view. It's not
the only possible view, however. It would be just as possible to say
"I don't make the call on what's correct or not" -- eg saying "it was
called `editorial amendments' because that's what the proposer thought it
should be called, no other reason" instead of "it was called `editorial
amendments' because I think that's the right thing to have called it". I
think it'd also be easier on you, no more burdensome on the rest of us,
and more efficient. It might be better at setting people's expectations:
where they might expect the secretary to be "unbiassed", or at least to
pretend to be, presumably they wouldn't expect that of people proposing

Obviously, YMMV, and it's YM that counts -- don't get me wrong, it's 100%
appropriate for you to make the call which way you'll handle your role;
I'm just saying I think the other choice would be better.

> > Personally, I'd rather the secretarial role be as automatic as
> > possible, even to the point where votes would be run without any
> > human intervention.  I've thought about that before, but I don't
> > have the inclination to write any code for it.
>         You know how to change the constitution. Currently, the
>  secretaries role is far from being a rubber stamp.

Hrm? I don't agree -- looking over the summary of ballot descriptions
and setting 3:1 requirements seem incredibly minor to me; the "rubber
stamp" aspect of running the vote and making announcements seems much
more important.


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: