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

Re: Bundled votes and the secretary

Le samedi 13 décembre 2008 à 22:09 +0100, Robert Millan a écrit :
> For the record, I think the Secretary's interpretation of the Constitution is
> perfectly correct.  

Whether it is correct or not is irrelevant here. The Secretary is
deciding this without justification, in an inconsistent way (similar
options get a different treatment), and without any thought for
following the constitution itself.

For example, the Secretary explained that option 6 permanently modifies
the foundation documents, but it doesn’t specify how. If it does modify
them, where are the modifications? If it doesn’t, why does it require
3:1 majority? If it is not acceptable as is, the Secretary should have
*refused to conduct the vote on it* so that a workable proposal could
have been issued. If this option wins, how will we manage the situation?

For the GFDL GR, this was even worse: the Secretary decided that “GFDL
is free” required 3:1 while “GFDL without invariant sections is free”
did not. The only reason is that he couldn’t stand the latter proposal
and decided to make it impossible to pass. Note that I was strongly
against that proposal – but even while agreeing with Manoj on the topic,
I cannot approve such a manipulation of the vote.

> 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:
>   http://www.debian.org/vote/2003/gr_sec415_tally.txt

I don’t have a problem with the 3:1 requirement. If I were to propose
any constitutional amendment on this topic, it would be to make explicit
for GR proposals when they override or modify foundation documents, and
only let the Secretary a power of rejection based on strong evidence the
proposal doesn’t conform.

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

No, he’s outrageously abusing his position.

: :' :      We are debian.org. Lower your prices, surrender your code.
`. `'       We will add your hardware and software distinctiveness to
  `-        our own. Resistance is futile.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Ceci est une partie de message =?ISO-8859-1?Q?num=E9riquement?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?_sign=E9e?=

Reply to: