Re: The Sourceless software in the kernel source GR
On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 18:39:01 -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG <firstname.lastname@example.org> said:
> Manoj Srivastava <email@example.com> 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 <firstname.lastname@example.org> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C