Christopher Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > To impose the 3:1 requirement requires, beforehand, a judgment concerning > the DFSG. Since no one has found a Secretarial basis for that power, it > follows that to arbitrarily impose 3:1 supermajorities (when doing so on > the basis of a personal interpretation of the DFSG) is not proper. That the > 3:1 bit is mentioned in the constitution is quite irrelevant.
The Secretary has the same basis as everyone else. The Constitution never tells the ftpmasters to implement the DFSG either. I didn't say he has the right to decide it for everyone else; I said he has the right to decide it when required in the course of his duties. For every single resolution, the Secretary must decide if it is a modification of a Foundation Document, and if it is, require a 3:1 majority. For him to require a simple majority would amount to a declaration that the resolution does *not* modify the Foundation Document. He cannot avoid making that determination. > The problem is that in the course of this procedure, the Secretary > overstepped his authority, as I've explained above. You may not agree with > that view, but I don't see why you should be so confused about my > complaint. I didn't say I was confused (or if I did, I didn't mean it in this way). I am perfectly clear about your complaint; I think it is groundless however. The Secretary *must* issue a correct ballot; it his his determination what correctness is in each and every case using the voting procedure. For him to say "this requires a majority" requires him to have decided that the resolution does not work a modification of the DFSG. He cannot avoid making that determination, one way or the other. Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]