| 1 |
On Sun, 18 May 2008 11:26:00 -0400 |
| 2 |
"William L. Thomson Jr." <wltjr@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
> > For the zillionth time... GLEP 39 was not a GLEP. It was one of a |
| 4 |
> > collection of proposals (that were not GLEPs) that were voted upon |
| 5 |
> > by a global vote. It was then *later* made available in GLEP form |
| 6 |
> > by Grant for convenience, but it wasn't accepted as a GLEP. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> Ok, but where is it stated that changes, or amendments can only be |
| 9 |
> done/approved by a global vote? As it stands now, it clearly states |
| 10 |
> global issues are to be decided by the council. With no conditions or |
| 11 |
> stipulations. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
Look back to when it was voted in. You'll probably need -core archives |
| 14 |
for this. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
> > Unfortunately, it seems that people are misinterpreting this -- it |
| 17 |
> > might have been better to document it as 'The Council's |
| 18 |
> > Constitution' or somesuch... |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> That would have been better. Also if the GLEP went into more detail, |
| 21 |
> and had other provisions. Like stripping the council of their power |
| 22 |
> in a situation like this one. Presently till replaced, if replaced, |
| 23 |
> they still have full power to decide upon global issues. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
The problem is, none of this was written under the assumption that the |
| 26 |
Council would try to misbehave and avoid following the rules... |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
-- |
| 29 |
Ciaran McCreesh |
Archives