Re: Social Contract GR's Affect on sarge
On Mon, 3 May 2004 17:28:43 +0100, Ian Jackson <ian@davenant.greenend.org.uk> said:
> * Our Secretary seems to be under the impression that a vote must
> be started within a certain period of a resolution being
> proposed. I don't think this is the case. The discussion period
> quoted in 4.2(4) is a _minimum_. According to A.2(1), it is up
> to the proposer or a sponsor to call for a vote, and there is no
> need to hold a vote until they do so.
Rubbish. In the case of the last GR, the sponsor had already
called for a vote (twice, in fact, I asked that the vote be delayed
the first time for for technical vote taking rasons, and he agreed).
> I would ask all proposers and sponsors of resolutions to avoid
> calling for a vote before reaching consensus on the wording of a
> resolution.
As far as I can tell, there was no dissent on the wording --
indeed, there were no amendments being offered, and there was very
little discussion happening.
I would object to these additional comments being added to
any official announcements from the ctte, unless they are better
reasearched for accuracy.
manoj
--
My own life has been spent chronicling the rise and fall of human
systems, and I am convinced that we are terribly vulnerable. ... We
should be reluctant to turn back upon the frontier of this
epoch. Space is indifferent to what we do; it has no feeling, no
design, no interest in whether or not we grapple with it. But we
cannot be indifferent to space, because the grand, slow march of
intelligence has brought us, in our generation, to a point from which
we can explore and understand and utilize it. To turn back now would
be to deny our history, our capabilities. James A. Michener
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Reply to: