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

Re: Bundled votes and the secretary

On Thu, Dec 11, 2008 at 03:15:20PM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> I do not trust anymore the Secretary, and I do not trust sufficiently
> the result of this vote. If the otherwise winning option is dismissed by
> the lack of a 3:1 majority (for which the requirements are still “Manoj
> said so”), or if a winning option is dismissed by a completely unrelated
> other option that was not proposed as an amendment, it won’t be possible
> to consider the vote result as the decision of the project as a whole.

I think it's obvious that the project has decayed into such a level in which
we can't even agree on what "override a foundation document" means.  This
renders the 3:1 super-majority requirements in the Constitution as and endless
source of contention, and there's nothing we can do about it unless the
Constitution is ammended.

For the record, I think the Secretary's interpretation of the Constitution is
perfectly correct.  Not that discussion about it is going to improve anything,
of course... we already tried haven't we?

So let's go back to 2003, when this started.  It seems this super-majority
requirement wasn't a big problem to you at the time:


Though, as time passes and things change, maybe it is now.  We're all human
and make mistakes sometimes.  So why don't you propose it to be removed?  I
would probably support you on that.  After all, I voted against it back then.

But I ask you one thing:  Do not blame the Secretary for your mistakes,
he's just doing his job.

Robert Millan

  The DRM opt-in fallacy: "Your data belongs to us. We will decide when (and
  how) you may access your data; but nobody's threatening your freedom: we
  still allow you to remove your data and not access it at all."

Reply to: