On 2/10/06, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 11:37:59AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: > > And, likewise, you can't argue that the secretary must treat an option > > as accepted when preparing the ballot. Treating controversial > > general resolution proposals as if they'd already won the vote before > > the vote begins would be the very abuse of power you're alluding to. > > So by this reasoning, is the original GR proposal not "controversial", > whereas the other two amendments are? What's the key difference, if it > isn't that the Project Secretary thinks one is correct and the others are > not?
Rather, the controversial elements of that option does not conflict with our historical interpretations of the DFSG. -- Raul
