On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 12:08:01PM +0200, Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote: > On Thu, Dec 11, 2008 at 10:38:34AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote: > > if he saw this mail and chose not to acknowledge the arguments, then he is > > behaving in a wholly improper manner with regard to this vote, and frankly I > > see no reason that we as a project should even honor the outcome of a vote > > on > > this ballot as presented.
> These two statements I find most alarming. > As long as there is no clear and unambiguous violation of the constitution in > the Secretary's actions, As a matter of fact, there's that too. This ballot has been assembled in contravention of the Standard Resolution Procedure, which requires that new ballot options be proposed as formal *amendments* to an outstanding GR proposal in order to appear on the same ballot. Manoj has overstepped his authority in order to group separately proposed resolutions about orthogonal questions on a single ballot, over the explicit objections of the proposer/seconders. This is not a power granted to the secretary under A.2. > and absent a valid GR stating otherwise, the vote must be presumed to be > constitutionally valid. Ah, and how are we meant to get a valid GR when the secretary is actively tampering with the GR process? Recognizing the validity of the vote is not a "must". The alternative is that we end up in a state of constitutional crisis. That's unfortunate, but it's also unfortunate that our Secretary is failing to act in a manner that safeguards the integrity of that office. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/ slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org