1 |
Richard Freeman <rich0@g.o> writes: |
2 |
> Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote: |
3 |
>> The problem here is not if anyone wants an election or not. Personally, |
4 |
>> I don't want to vote for the council now. |
5 |
> |
6 |
> Then don't! Isn't the whole point of a democracy to allow the will of those |
7 |
> who are represented to triumph? If that will is to not hold an election, |
8 |
> wouldn't it be undemocratic to ignore it? |
9 |
|
10 |
GLEP 39 doesn't state "if $slacker_meeting, vote to see if people want to |
11 |
hold an election." |
12 |
|
13 |
|
14 |
> Policies are important. It is important that they be well thought out. It is |
15 |
> also important that when a policy is dumb that people not blindly follow it. |
16 |
|
17 |
When it's the case that a policy dumb, then people should raise that fact and |
18 |
work to change the policy. In some circumstances, the effects of the dumb |
19 |
policy might be so dumb as for people to feel the need to arrange for |
20 |
compensating action. But just ignoring the rules is not a very good option. |
21 |
|
22 |
|
23 |
> point to nuke this bullet item in GLEP 39? I think the whole slacker policy |
24 |
> is a bit harsh in general - maybe it could be adjusted somewhat. At the very |
25 |
|
26 |
I agree the single-slacker-meeting-forces-election rule is too harsh. |
27 |
|
28 |
-- |
29 |
...jsled |
30 |
http://asynchronous.org/ - a=jsled; b=asynchronous.org; echo ${a}@${b} |