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

Re: First call for votes for the Lenny release GR

On Fri, 2009-01-02 at 16:59 -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > 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?
> There is no plain English reading of "A Foundation Document requires a 3:1
> majority for its supersession" that implies the secretary should apply a 3:1
> majority requirement to resolutions which aren't even intended to override
> the Foundation Documents, let alone amend them.

Um, it seems to me that's exactly what it says.  The question is not
whether the resolution "intends" to override a foundation document, it's
whether it actually does so.  

> Nor is it anything short of absurd for the Secretary to declare that a
> resolution amends a Foundation Document when the actual resolution says
> nothing of the sort, and the resolution proposer explicitly rejects this
> interpretation.[1][2][3]

So if I propose a resolution that says, say, "No uploads made on Tuesday
shall be removed from the archive for violations of the DFSG" and then I
reject the interpretation that this is a supercession of the DFSG,
you're saying that such a resolution only requires a simple majority?

You seem to be saying that what is determinative is the resolution
proposer's statement.  I find this implausible in the extreme.  The
Secretary is at least an official who we can hope will be neutral; the
resolution proposer is, by definition, not neutral.


Reply to: