[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: The Sourceless software in the kernel source GR

On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 18:39:01 -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG <tb@becket.net> said: 

> Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> writes:
>> Seems like I'm damned if I do, and damned if I don't.

> It seems to me as if what happened was:

> You thought the "preamble" was rationale and not part of the
> resolution proper; but the proposer said "no, that was an important
> part of the resolution proper."

        The preamble, in my eyes, is still not part of the
 resolution. It is a preamble to the resolution, and won't be on

        It is, however, possible that a rteolution may have an
 introductory section, which is part of the resolution.

> What's wrong with the proposer's word winning there?  You just
> modify the draft ballot and say "thanks for making it clear", and
> you can, if you wish and are concerned that shenanigans are afoot,
> ask the seconders whether they wish to keep their second in force.

        The draft ballot is not an issue.

        What is an issue is that a sloppy proposal mail may have
 mislead the sponsors to believe that a preamble was an introductory
 section, or vice versa. Hard to know unless the proposors and ponsors
 are clear about their intent.

Editing is a rewording activity.
Manoj Srivastava   <srivasta@debian.org>  <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C

Reply to: