On 10/25/2012 11:57 AM, Noel Chiappa wrote:
>> From: Doug Barton <dougb@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
>> 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