On Wed, 8 Apr 1998, James A.Treacy wrote:
<reasonable arguments deleted>
> This seemed a natural and orderly extension of implementing the
> constitution. If Ian feels that this is unacceptable for some
> reason, I will make a formal amendment to the constitution
> stating that it be allowed.
>
While I agree with the merrits of your previous arguments, I don't see
what this has to do with the constitution. The secretary has "powers"
which allow the secretary to execute that office.
I would prefer that such issues be left of to the secretary to decide. If
there is a need for automated processes, the secretary only needs to
decide that it is necessary.
The constitution should be a minimal document. If we specify every
possible action by each officer and member, the document will get very
large, and even more confusing than it is now.
I would suggest that when an officer is given the power to execute their
office, that is all the constitution need declare. It is then the
responsibility of the office holder to define how the office will be
administered. Giving detailed descriptions of what is "the right way" to
do this task is, in the long run, counter productive.
Remember the KISS principle.
Waiting is,
Dwarf
--
_-_-_-_-_- Author of "The Debian Linux User's Guide" _-_-_-_-_-_-
aka Dale Scheetz Phone: 1 (850) 656-9769
Flexible Software 11000 McCrackin Road
e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tallahassee, FL 32308
_-_-_-_-_-_- If you don't see what you want, just ask _-_-_-_-_-_-_-
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
