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

Re: draft ballot for the firmware vote

On Fri, Oct 06, 2006 at 01:01:10AM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Fri, 06 Oct 2006, Sven Luther wrote:
> > Manoj, if you don't stop this manipulation now, i am going to ask
> > for your recall as secretary, not sure if this is possible under the
> > constitution.
> Manoj has not done *ANYTHING* that requires secretarial powers so far.
> Indeed, the secretary *CANNOT* issue a call for votes unless they are
> the proposer or sponsor of a resolution which will appear on the
> ballot. The only thing Manoj can do, which he has not yet done to my
> knowledge, is alter the ballot from what the person calling for a vote
> has suggested.

Maybe, but Manoj wearing a double hat on this, is troublesome.

> > During weeks, you have resisted bringing the original proposal from
> > frank to vote,
> Only the proposer or a sponsor can make a call for votes; if Frank
> wanted to bring the proposal to a vote, he could have done so himself.
> Since he hasn't, claiming that Manoj has resisted bringing the
> original proposal to a vote is incorrect.

I did do a call for vote when i finally noticed that it was our place to do
it, i was flamed on irc and mailing lists to do so though.

> > and now, because there are new proposals you dislike, you are going
> > to rush the election. This is a clear abuse of your Secretarial
> > position, and is not in order.
> There's nothing wrong with calling for a vote at any point after the
> minimum discussion period has elapsed. If you haven't submitted
> appropriate amendments by that point in time, then it's no one else's
> fault but your own. [If they haven't been seconded by enough people,
> then they just weren't popular enough.]

Manoj was aware of the proposal being worked on, he even participated in its

> These proposals have been around for weeks, they've been discussed for
> weeks. Lets get on with it.

Please see the final RFC for the ballot proposed by me and frederik.


Sven Luther

Reply to: