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

Re: Bundled votes and the secretary

On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 01:54:30PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > As long as there is no clear and unambiguous violation of the constitution in
> > the Secretary's actions,
> As a matter of fact, there's that too.  This ballot has been assembled in
> contravention of the Standard Resolution Procedure, which requires that new
> ballot options be proposed as formal *amendments* to an outstanding GR
> proposal in order to appear on the same ballot.

That's certainly a valid interpretation of the constitution (and one could make
an excellent case for it).  However, it is not the only possible (and
reasonable) one, hence it's not an unambiguous violation - it is within the
Secretary's power to reject that interpretation in favor of an alternative.

One alternative (and not, in my opinion, frivolous) interpretation  can be
derived from the fact that the Constitution requires that amendments "may be
made formal by being proposed and sponsored according to the requirements for a
new resolution", which arguably could mean that an amendment need not be called
an amendment by its proposer.

> > and absent a valid GR stating otherwise, the vote must be presumed to be
> > constitutionally valid.
> Ah, and how are we meant to get a valid GR when the secretary is actively
> tampering with the GR process?

Are you speaking hypothetically, or have you actually tried to get a "that was
not a valid GR" GR past the Secretary?  If the latter, I must apologise, for I
have missed it.

(Incidentally, I think it is clear that we are operating under different
definitions of "valid GR".  Mine is rather formal - as long as the Secretary
does not blatantly[*] disregard the Constitution, any vote the Secretary
conducts is valid.)

> Recognizing the validity of the vote is not a "must".  The alternative is
> that we end up in a state of constitutional crisis.

Well, true.  I was hoping nobody else had noticed, and I didn't want to give
anybody ideas :)

I would be strongly disappointed if we did arrive at a constitutional crisis.
Among other things, and depending on the events that lead up to it, it would be
one more reason for me to reconsider my membership in this project.

[*] "Blatant" would require, in my eyes, that there is no reasonable
interpretation of the Secretary's actions that would render them
constitutional.  So far, I haven't noticed anything like that.
Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho, Jyväskylä, Finland

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: