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

Re: Bundled votes and the secretary

On Sun, Dec 14 2008, Steve Langasek wrote:

> On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 12:08:01PM +0200, Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
>> On Thu, Dec 11, 2008 at 10:38:34AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
>> > if he saw this mail and chose not to acknowledge the arguments,
>> > then he is behaving in a wholly improper manner with regard to this
>> > vote, and frankly I see no reason that we as a project should even
>> > honor the outcome of a vote on this ballot as presented.
>> These two statements I find most alarming.  
>> 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.  Manoj
> has overstepped his authority in order to group separately proposed
> resolutions about orthogonal questions on a single ballot, over the
> explicit objections of the proposer/seconders.  This is not a power
> granted to the secretary under A.2.

        All related options are placed on the ballot, no? I am working
 on the basis that any proposal, and all related proposals that may
 affect the action to be taken, must be on the ballot.

        None of the amendments in recent votes take the formal form (I
 amend foo, and replace all the words in the proposal with the words
 below). Amendments (made formal by seconds) just propose what the
 alternate handling being proposed, and related proposals go on the
 ballot. This is how the "related amendment" has been handled in
 practice over the last several years.

>> 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?
> Recognizing the validity of the vote is not a "must".  The alternative is
> that we end up in a state of constitutional crisis.  That's unfortunate, but
> it's also unfortunate that our Secretary is failing to act in a manner that
> safeguards the integrity of that office.

        In the interest of keeping the discussion civil, I shall not
 respond to this.

All great ideas are controversial, or have been at one time.
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> <http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/>  
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C

Reply to: