Moritz Muehlenhoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On 2008-11-16, Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> The secretary isn't a delegate. The secretary has special powers >> explicitly listed in the Constitution that are not available to the DPL >> or to a delegate and a selection process mandated by the Constitution >> that isn't the same as delegation. > So, what's the process to get rid of the Project Secretary? Well, there's a cryptic note in 4.1, and I'm not sure what it's supposed to mean: 7. In case of a disagreement between the project leader and the incumbent secretary, appoint a new secretary. But I think this is just echoing 7.2: The Project Secretary is appointed by the Project Leader and the current Project Secretary. If the Project Leader and the current Project Secretary cannot agree on a new appointment, they must ask the Developers by way of General Resolution to appoint a Secretary. which means that this only applies to the end of the Secretary's term. Thus, so far as I can tell, the only mechanism is to elect a DPL who will appoint a different Secretary after the one-year term expires. There is no provision in section 7 of the Constitution for replacing the Secretary. Personally, I think this is reasonable given the role of the Secretary as sort of akin to a Supreme Court. Just to be clear, I personally have no interest in replacing Manoj as Project Secretary. I think we should reach a 3:1 majority on this topic and put it to bed permanently, at which point the debate over the ballot options is irrelevant. Regardless of rulings, if we don't reach a 3:1 majority and modify a foundation document, we're going to keep having this discussion. -- Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
