On 2005.08.29 11:07 Charlie Collins wrote:
> I believe that the purpose of the veto power on applications is that
> the
> presiding officer may have more information than the constituents.
> In
> particular, the officers may know about disciplinary actions that the
> general members do not. With the general policy of punishments being
> kept
> quiet and without details to the general membership, it would be hard
> in
> some cases for the members to make an informed democratic decision.
But the punish in private policy only restricts an officer from
revealing the details of a punishment--they could still reveal that the
person was recently punished, and what they'd done. So in that
situation, the supervising officer could just tell the membership "this
candidate was recently disciplined for doing X, bear that in mind when
voting".
Henry Towsner
US2003112558