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

Re: Canonical list of proposal text

On 9/21/06, Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> wrote:
On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 12:17:18 +0100, Ian Jackson <ian@davenant.greenend.org.uk> said:
>  3. The person who calls for a vote states what they believe the
>     wordings of the resolution and any relevant amendments are, and
>     consequently what form the ballot should take. However, the
>     final decision on the form of ballot(s) is the Secretary's - see
>     7.1(1), 7.1(3) and A.3(4).

       The web page is not the ballot.

But a web page may present the ballot.

Personally, I do not think it's an abuse of power for the
Secretary to arrange so that the web pages represent
a best effort at what the proposals seem to be.  Well,
not in the general case.  If quorum seconders have
explicitly quoted the same identical text and that text
differs from what the web page says, and there has been
more than sufficient time since the seconds to update
the web page, that could be abuse of power -- but
that's not very much like a "best effort".

On the other hand, in the general case, refusing to exercise
your responsibilities can be just as much an abuse of
power as exercising them inappropriately.  Sadly,
this might leave you with an undue burden (and no good
choices) -- particularly when the people presenting the
material will not present their concepts clearly -- but I'm
dubious that there's anything a person in a position of
responsibility can do to deflect all criticism.  Not even
all unwarranted criticism.

That said, if people are flooding you with nonsense, almost
any response you can come up with has some validity.
And, that includes deliberately operating at some minimum
standard.  At least, sometimes.

This probably isn't very helpful... but I wanted to disagree with
you about the web-page issue, and I felt that some of these
other concepts were also relevant.


Reply to: