24-03-2022, 11:55 AM
I have no real interest in this specific issue and am not inclined to wade through the history.
I have no wish to offend MT or anyone else.
My point is one of principle (or pedantry some might say), which can sometimes be harder for those close to an issue to see.
It just seems very odd to me to have a proposal to confirm a set of rules, then along with it another proposal to ignore those rules for a specific case, without any reason being put forward by the proposer.
It also seems inadequate governance to suggest that exceptions to rules embedded in the constitution can be agreed by simple majority when the rules and the constitution which contains them can only be agreed by a 2/3s majority. In my opinion the correct governance should that the constitution should state the requirements for any exceptions to be approved and where no such mechanisms are specified then there should be no exceptions (until/if the constitution is changed, then no longer an exception). Dangerous precedents and all that.
Anyway, I'll say no more on this.
I have no wish to offend MT or anyone else.
My point is one of principle (or pedantry some might say), which can sometimes be harder for those close to an issue to see.
It just seems very odd to me to have a proposal to confirm a set of rules, then along with it another proposal to ignore those rules for a specific case, without any reason being put forward by the proposer.
It also seems inadequate governance to suggest that exceptions to rules embedded in the constitution can be agreed by simple majority when the rules and the constitution which contains them can only be agreed by a 2/3s majority. In my opinion the correct governance should that the constitution should state the requirements for any exceptions to be approved and where no such mechanisms are specified then there should be no exceptions (until/if the constitution is changed, then no longer an exception). Dangerous precedents and all that.
Anyway, I'll say no more on this.