Re: Initial draft proposed constitution (v0.3)
leader@debian.org wrote on 22.03.98 in <[🔎] E0yGkhW-0004u5-00@anarres.greenend.org.uk>:
> Kai Henningsen writes ("Re: Initial draft proposed consitutution (v0.2)"):
> ...
> > Can you please explain 4.2? I always thought my English was fairly good,
> > but it's not up to that one.
>
> I presume it's the second paragraph you're confused by ? That's there
Well yes, that's the part I can't parse at all.
> to make it possible to hold up a decision by the Project Leader until
> a vote can be taken. This takes more people to do than just to force
>
I didn't just mean the intent. I meant that it actually reads like Chinese
to me. I can't parse it. Far too much jargon I don't know.
> > As to seconding, seems to me with ~ 300 developers, Q is something like
> > 8.7. Needing seconding from that many is bound to require a procedure all
> > for itself.
>
> You think so ? You don't think
> X: I propose the following
> A,B,C,D,E,F,G,H,I: seconded
> will be easy ?
>
> Alternatively we could have these things go by email. Do you think
> that 9 is too many ? Do you think it should depend on the number of
> current developers at all ?
>
> See my comments to Raul, above.
I'm no longer sure. Maybe we simply ought to try this out. But somehow I
don't see more than about three seconders as being practical, considering
the way discussions run here.
MfG Kai
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: