2011/6/30 Philip Brown <[email protected]>: > I fail to see how the Secretary has "a duty" to > protect a procedure that was never officially made a procedure of the > organization in the first place.
When I was appointed the position, there was no existing voting procedure. Therefore, I am following the simplest possible procedure that makes sense and guarantees resolution. There may be differences between what you and I think what should be the details of the procedure - it should not surprise you. If we haven't talked about it, what would be the reason to have exactly the same idea of the voting procedure? Let's suppose that you wish is to have a more complex procedure (e.g. [1]). A way to adopt one, would be to write a proposal and have a vote. In such scenario, you, as a potential proponent, should be happy about protecting the procedure. If the secretary allowed anyone to modify the way voting is handled, it would be easier to interfere, delay, or block the vote entirely. Such problems have happened[2] in the recent past. When using a simple but effective procedure, there is a much bigger chance that a proposal to adopt a more complex voting procedure, is resolved. Otherwise, you could have never be able to introduce a new voting procedure. What are other people's opinions on this? Am I doing the wrong thing? Or the right thing? Maciej [1] http://www.debian.org/vote/howto_follow.en.html [2] http://lists.opencsw.org/pipermail/maintainers/2011-March/014348.html _______________________________________________ maintainers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.opencsw.org/mailman/listinfo/maintainers .:: This mailing list's archive is public. ::.
