On Thu, Dec 11, 2008 at 03:15:20PM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote: > > I do not trust anymore the Secretary, and I do not trust sufficiently > the result of this vote. If the otherwise winning option is dismissed by > the lack of a 3:1 majority (for which the requirements are still “Manoj > said so”), or if a winning option is dismissed by a completely unrelated > other option that was not proposed as an amendment, it won’t be possible > to consider the vote result as the decision of the project as a whole.
I think it's obvious that the project has decayed into such a level in which we can't even agree on what "override a foundation document" means. This renders the 3:1 super-majority requirements in the Constitution as and endless source of contention, and there's nothing we can do about it unless the Constitution is ammended. For the record, I think the Secretary's interpretation of the Constitution is perfectly correct. Not that discussion about it is going to improve anything, of course... we already tried haven't we? So let's go back to 2003, when this started. It seems this super-majority requirement wasn't a big problem to you at the time: http://www.debian.org/vote/2003/gr_sec415_tally.txt Though, as time passes and things change, maybe it is now. We're all human and make mistakes sometimes. So why don't you propose it to be removed? I would probably support you on that. After all, I voted against it back then. But I ask you one thing: Do not blame the Secretary for your mistakes, he's just doing his job. -- Robert Millan The DRM opt-in fallacy: "Your data belongs to us. We will decide when (and how) you may access your data; but nobody's threatening your freedom: we still allow you to remove your data and not access it at all." -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org