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. Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org