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

Canonical list of proposal text

On Tue, 19 Sep 2006 22:15:28 -0400, Branden Robinson <branden@debian.org> said: 

> On Tue, Sep 19, 2006 at 09:54:17AM +0200, Frank Küster wrote:
>> > Umh, then I need to ask why the resolution is not clear enough so
>> > that it does not need the preamble to know in which way the
>> > author has intended its interpretation?  As Manoj pointed out
>> > already, courts look at the resolution when *interpreting* it,
>> > not at the preamble, so it seems pretty useles in that regard.
>> As for german law, this is definitely wrong.  Courts primarily look
>> at the text, but the public documents produced in parliament during
>> the creation process do in fact count when in doubt.

> Manoj is simply incorrect about this. 

        Fair enough.  I am now proclaiming the separation of the vote
 pages on vote.debian.org and the  the proposals we shall vote on in
 the future.

        This has to be the case, since the vote.d.o pages are under
 control by me, or anyone with the power to commit to webwml; but
 these are not the people who can determine what the actuall current
 words of the proposal are. Since I can't exercise judgement and
 determine what the wording of the proposal might be, I can't promise
 that the vote.d.o pages would have the correct phraseology. That
 depends on the proposers and sponsors, over whom I have no control.

        Could I ask the proposers to submit formated renditions of the
 proposal for inclusion on the web page? Eeew, what abuse of
 power. There is nothing in the constitution that allows the secretary
 to impose such additional obstacles to getting a GR through.

        Since the constitution decrees that all the proposals and
 related material be posted on the vote.debian.org mailing list (well,
 that is the designated mailing list), which is puiblicly archived,
 the best we can do is point people to the archive. Since a proposal
 may have developed over several emails, it is not feasible to point
 out the actual emails on the ballot (nor does the constitution so
 require), so the ballot may contain a pointer to which month of the
 archive people need to look at -- unless that too is deemed

        This way, there us no way the secretary can exercise undue
 influence and in any way censor the glorious wording proposed and

Never tamper with the truth.  Never rationalize it.  What you might
like to believe is not necessarily the truth.
Manoj Srivastava   <srivasta@debian.org>  <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C

Reply to: