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

Re: call for seconds: on firmware

Moritz Muehlenhoff <jmm@inutil.org> writes:
> On 2008-11-16, Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> wrote:

>> The secretary isn't a delegate.  The secretary has special powers
>> explicitly listed in the Constitution that are not available to the DPL
>> or to a delegate and a selection process mandated by the Constitution
>> that isn't the same as delegation.

> So, what's the process to get rid of the Project Secretary?

Well, there's a cryptic note in 4.1, and I'm not sure what it's supposed
to mean:

7. In case of a disagreement between the project leader and the incumbent
   secretary, appoint a new secretary.

But I think this is just echoing 7.2:

   The Project Secretary is appointed by the Project Leader and the
   current Project Secretary.

   If the Project Leader and the current Project Secretary cannot agree on
   a new appointment, they must ask the Developers by way of General
   Resolution to appoint a Secretary.

which means that this only applies to the end of the Secretary's term.

Thus, so far as I can tell, the only mechanism is to elect a DPL who will
appoint a different Secretary after the one-year term expires.  There is
no provision in section 7 of the Constitution for replacing the Secretary.

Personally, I think this is reasonable given the role of the Secretary as
sort of akin to a Supreme Court.  Just to be clear, I personally have no
interest in replacing Manoj as Project Secretary.  I think we should reach
a 3:1 majority on this topic and put it to bed permanently, at which point
the debate over the ballot options is irrelevant.  Regardless of rulings,
if we don't reach a 3:1 majority and modify a foundation document, we're
going to keep having this discussion.

Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org)               <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>

Reply to: