Re: Thanks and Decision making working group (was Re: General Resolution: Statement regarding Richard Stallman's readmission to the FSF board result)
Wouter Verhelst <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 01:04:21PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> * A formal amendment has to be sponsored like a new GR before it can be
>> accepted, but the original proposer of a GR can make their own amendment
>> without having it be sponsored. These two rules make no sense in
>> combination (which is probably why the first rule is rarely, perhaps
>> never, enforced).
> I'm not entirely sure what you mean by that. Can you clarify?
Take a look at A.1.1 and A.1.2 and ask what the process is if someone
other than the original proposer notices a logical flaw (i.e., not a minor
error) and wants to ask the proposer to fix it and everyone agrees that it
should be fixed.
In practice, the expedient thing for the proposer to do is to repropose
the same amendment themselves, which bypasses the sponsorship requirement,
and then immediately accept it, and then allow the original amendment to
be discarded due to lack of sponsors. This is silly, which is presumably
why the Project Secretary doesn't require people do this even though
technically it's required.
The sponsorship requirement only makes sense because of the confusion
between amendments and ballot options; the sponsorship is there for the
A.1.3 case. I've done some test reworkings of this section separating
ballot options from amendments, and everything becomes more
straightforward and clear (and has other advantages in role
Russ Allbery (email@example.com) <https://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>