On 10/25/2012 11:57 AM, Noel Chiappa wrote:
From: Doug Barton <dougb(_at_)dougbarton(_dot_)us>
When Marshall was appointed the rules we have now were in place. To
change the rules now, and then apply them to this situation is by
definition retroactive.
By that logic, _any_ change to any rule involving, say, the IESG
(repeat for all other I* bodies) - e.g. changing its powers, etc -
can't come into play until between 1 and 2 years have passed, so that
all existing seated members will have been replaced/reseated.
Otherwise you'll be changing the powers/etc that they had when they
were seated - i.e. retroactive changes to their powers/etc.
I can see why you would conclude that, but generally your interpretation
would be wrong. The idea here is that applying _punitive_ action (such
as removal from a position) retroactively is not "fair," and therefore
shouldn't be done.
If your hypothetical changes involved granting more powers/benefits/etc.
to a sitting board, it's doubtful that any of them would disagree. :)
If your hypothetical change _removed_ things from a sitting board, some
of them may not like it ("This was not the job I signed up for") and
then they have the option to resign.
Doug