Bug#727708: Call for votes on init system resolution
On Thu, Feb 06, 2014 at 06:53:56PM +0000, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Kurt Roeckx writes ("Re: Bug#727708: Call for votes on init system resolution"):
> > On Thu, Feb 06, 2014 at 06:26:09PM +0000, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > > If you agree with this reasoning then I'd be grateful if you'd advise
> > > what form of words should be used to achieve the desired effect. The
> > > desired effect is that:
> > >
> > > * A GR option containing a non-binding position statement, requiring
> > > a 1:1 majority, can trigger:
> > >
> > > * Provisions in a TC resolution which is conditional on such a GR,
> > >
> > > * such that the TC declares in advance that the GR's views are to be
> > > substituted for the TC's.
> > I guess it should mention that the option in the GR should be a
> > position statement (and should not try to override the CTTE).
> Yes. What did you think of my proposal earlier ? If you don't think
> that has the right effect, please suggest something else.
Yes, I think that should be fine.
> > That assumes that the text is actually a position statement. I'm
> > not sure that I can interprete all texts as position statements.
> > As always, I have to see the text first.
> If the text explicitly says that it is a non-binding position
> statement issued under s4.1.5 of the Constitution, would that suffice ?