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

Re: Discussion: Possible GR: Enhance requirements for General Resolutions

On 05/01/09 at 23:37 +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> >> Do you advocate the current situation to NOT change? [...]
> > No.  I accept a change may be worthwhile, but 2Q seems very high and
> > suggested without reason.  (See my other messages on the topic.)
> After all the mails in the thread, I *think* I go and propose something
> very similar to what I initially had, and then either propose an
> amendment myself that takes the lower value of Q only[1], or wait for
> someone else to do that. I think its best we end up with 2 options on
> the vote,
> 1) Increase requirements to 2Q [3:1]
> 2) Increase requirements to Q  [3:1]
> and also the usual Further Discussion, which would be for everyone who
> wants to keep the current state of 5 people. That, IMO, should fit
> everyone.

Agreed: there's no point discussing which number of seconders you want
to require now, we just need a ballot with several options.

I would also like options:
- to explicitely say that we want to stay with 5 (no further discussion
- that we want to increase the requirements to 10. (it would probably
  be a popular compromise between the current 5 and Q)

It would be better if you could draft a ballot with all those options
yourself (maybe together with someone else). That way, we would have a
unified, comprehensible set of options.
| Lucas Nussbaum
| lucas@lucas-nussbaum.net   http://www.lucas-nussbaum.net/ |
| jabber: lucas@nussbaum.fr             GPG: 1024D/023B3F4F |

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: