Re: First call for votes for the Lenny release GR
On Wed, 2008-12-31 at 12:01 -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> While I understand the desire to add additional checks and balances in
> response to figures exercising power in ways we don't approve of, I think
> the fundamental problem with this latest vote was that the Secretary was
> asserting a power that was *not* his under the letter of the constitution.
> Splitting up the constitutional powers doesn't really prevent the Secretary
> from acting counter to the constitution or counter to project consensus, if
> they're inclined to do that.
When you say he was asserting a power that was not his, what exactly are
you saying? I'm having trouble understanding. It is unquestionably the
Secretary's job to prepare the ballot and announce the results; this
requires the Secretary to determine which options require a 3:1
supermajority. How do you suppose he should go about this task, other
than to do his best job?
> I hope that our next Secretary will recognize the importance of not imposing
> his personal (and contentious) beliefs on the voting process. If they don't
> recognize this, then I guess it's inevitable that we amend the constitution
> to limit the Secretary's power.
I am distressed that you have this attitude about Manoj's performance,
when it is your own decisions as release manager that have also been
called into question recently. Would you apply the same standards to