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 http://antti-juhani.kaijanaho.fi/newblog/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/antti-juhani/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature