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

Re: Proposed wording for the SC modification

On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 09:14:41PM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> The foundation documents are like the law. This GR is like a "decree of
> the government" that tells us how the law will be applied.

A decree of the government does not do that.  It gives supplemental rules and
regulations compatible with the law (and generally requires a specific
authorization in the law, but this varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction).

In any case, GRs are law, not decrees.  The proper analogy for a decree would
be a Project Leader or Delegate decision.

> If the GR doesn't explicitely state that it modifies a foundation
> document, then it doesn't. If you believe that it does implicitely, then
> you vote against it (or propose an amendment where you explicitely modify
> the document).

The Project Secretary is charged with conducting General Resolution votes,
and with judging disputes in the application of the Constitution.  As such, the
Project Secretary is not really a secretarial position - the best analogy is a
chairperson of a decision-making body.

As such, I believe it is the Project Secretary's duty (not a right, but duty)
to ensure that any proposals and amendments are compatible with the
Constitution, and it is also the Project Secretary's duty to refuse to conduct
a vote he believes to be contrary to the Constitution.

(I do not have an opinion on the actual case at hand.  The above are general
procedural comments.)

Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho, Jyväskylä, Finland

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: