Re: Draft ballot for the Project membership procedures vote
On 04/12/08 at 09:44 +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> Le Thu, Dec 04, 2008 at 12:05:39AM +0000, Neil McGovern a écrit :
> >
> > > Also, you removed "and all the contributors" in Choice2 of the ballot (Choice 1
> > > of the GR), which in my opinion is crucial. But since after the vote of the GR,
> > > the wording of the choices has no role in iterpreting the GR, just go ahead if
> > > you disagree.
> > >
> >
> > I don't agree I'm afraid.
>
> I regret that you did not feedback when I made propositions for the ballot and
> that you do not explain why you disagree. I think that your wording is
> detrimental to the choice that is the least embarassing for Jörg (or second
> least, after "further discussion"), but I accept your decision and will not
> discuss further unless invited to do so.
Bah, the wording of this choice is so convoluted in the GR that it's
impossible to summarize it in a few words in the ballot, so I'm fine
with what Neil came up with.
For example, I would have liked to see "Thank the DAM, invite the DAM to
further discuss until vote or concensus, leading to a new proposal.".
The fact that the proposal explicitely "thanks the DAM" was a reason for
which several DDs said that they wouldn't vote it above FD.
--
| Lucas Nussbaum
| lucas@lucas-nussbaum.net http://www.lucas-nussbaum.net/ |
| jabber: lucas@nussbaum.fr GPG: 1024D/023B3F4F |
Reply to: