On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 05:18:18PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: > On 2/9/06, Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au> wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 08, 2006 at 08:58:39PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: > > > It's not about honor; it's about decision-making. > > When you raise the implication that your fellow developers can't be > > trusted, you make it about honour; when you think it's important to > > move a decision from one set of hands to another in order to ensure the > > "right" decision is made, that's a pretty direct implication that you > > don't trust the first group. > Is this courtesy to be extended to the project secretary?
Of course it should be. That's why I said it generally. > > As it happens, it says nothing about implicit changes to foundation > > documents, or even about having to act in accord with them. > Section 4.1.5.3 seems to say something about this issue. It doesn't > use the exact words you've used, but the meaning of the words it > does use seems more than adequate. It says how the documents can be superceded or withdrawn; it doesn't say anything about ignoring them outright, or changing the way they're interpreted. Of course, not saying anything about it leaves the matter up to interpretation, at least to some extent, and the secretary's certainly empowered to do that, both effectively (by controlling the way votes are taken) and formally (by 7.1(3)). I think it's a mistake for Manoj to have taken on that role in this case, but it's his choice. As far as the outcome's concerned, though, I don't think it matters either way -- I think Anton's amendment has received more than enough discussion that it ought to be voted above "Further Discussion", and I think it's far better for us to decide what we want to do based on what we want and what we think, rather than attacking each other. Cheers, aj
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
