At 03:15 PM 10/10/00 -0500, you wrote:
>WRT the resolution proposing the removal of non-free, the following
>irregularities have occured with the process.
>
>1. The Secretary has made a decision by fiat stating that a 3:1
>supermajority is required for its passage, despite contradictory
>language in the Constitution.
In my opinion, based on my following of the discussions that lead up to the
Secretary's decision, there was considerable disagreement concerning the
meaning and intent of the "contradictory language".
Personally, I agree that the constitution does not explicitly provide for a
3:1 supermajority to modify the Social Contract. But it doesn't explicitly
provide for -any- method to modify the Social Contract. It explicitly
provides for a 3:1 majority to modify the Constitution, and it explicitly
provides for the "issuing" of new non-technical documents. I see four
possible ways to interpret that:
1. The Social Contract cannot be modified under the Debian Constitution.
2. Modifying the Social Contract is implicitly issuing a new Social
Contract, and thus allowed with "simple" majority.
3. Modifying the Social Contract is implicitly modifying the Constitution,
and thus allowed with a 3:1 supermajority
4. Modifying the Social Contract is implicitly allowed via some other
clause in the Constitution no one has mentioned yet, and the voting
requirements thus determined by that clause.
It's a hard choice to make. Good arguments could be made, and were, for 1,
2 or 3 (dunno about 4, though). Because of the ambiguity, Branden and
Manoj have both proposed amendments that would clarify the issue -- not
necessarily change it, but to remove the ambiguity.
The Secretary chose 3.
>2. Confusion has surrounded the ballot regarding aj's amendment.
There has been that. I don't know how -that's- gonna be resolved.
>3. There has been a suggestion that because of the Secretary's
>inaction, the proposal and the amendment have expired. This places us
>in unknown territory since the Secretary already issued a ballot.
>Furthermore, it leaves us in a nasty situation whereby a single person
>can kill any resolution by ignoring it.
My personal opinion is that the suggestion is untenable on it's
face. True, there has been considerable time with no debate on the
proposal, but a Call for Votes was made, indicating that people were ready
to vote and bring closure. The failure of a parliamentary officer to
perform his duties should not kill a valid proposal.
>4. During the Secretary's absence, the Constitution specifies that the
>chairman of the Technical Committee should step up in his place.
>However, that person is Ian Jackson and he failed with this duty. The
>Technical Committee have failed to replace him with someone more
>active in the Project.
>
>--
>John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> www.complete.org
>Sr. Software Developer, Progeny Linux Systems, Inc. www.progenylinux.com
>#include <std_disclaimer.h> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>
>--
>To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
