[csw-maintainers] amendments and issues with recent prop

Maciej Bliziński maciej at opencsw.org
Fri Jul 1 12:16:20 CEST 2011

2011/6/30 Philip Brown <phil at bolthole.com>:
> 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

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?


[1] http://www.debian.org/vote/howto_follow.en.html
[2] http://lists.opencsw.org/pipermail/maintainers/2011-March/014348.html

More information about the maintainers mailing list