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

Re: Ad hoc and spontaneous voting

>>"Wichert" == Wichert Akkerman <wakkerma@cs.leidenuniv.nl> writes:

 Wichert> Previously Manoj Srivastava wrote:
 >> Most votes (like the non-free issue) have been called with no
 >> formal proposal, seconds, or a discussion period. I have strong
 >> feeling against taking any action whatsoever merely on these votes.

 Wichert> Ahum? The non-free issue a) hasn't had a call for votes
 Wichert> yet. I announced I want to decide this via a vote, which
 Wichert> would be your formal proposal.

        Isee. Branden said essentially the same thing. I stand
 corrected. But if these are indeed formar general resolutions (and I
 do accept what Darren says that they have followed the constitution
 and all), then I humbly request the proposers and seconders to
 hihglight the facta bit more? Possible a standard of the subject of
 the general resolution? (As proof we need this, I offer the fact that
 I was unaware that this was a general resolution, and so were others
 on IRC when I brought this up. Though I have been busy with real
 life, I have not been apathetic)

        Secondly, I think that General resolutions are important
 enough to the project that they need be announced on the
 -devel-announce list *and advertized as such*. Not just "I think we
 should" or "I am calling for a vote on", but somethiung that says:


        Thirdly, I wouldrather we not turn everything automatically
 into a general resolution from the word go. Set up a floater, or
 something, and let people chew it out a bit. When we have the issues
 somewhat hased out, adn you think you have the resolution in a final
 form (I know you may think that you already have the resolution in a
 final form, but input from other like minded developers is not to be
 sneezed at).  This last is from my observations in the policy mailing
 list; I think this shall cut down on any future frivoulous resolution

 Wichert> Since I did that as the DPL no seconds were needed. From
 Wichert> that moment the standard discussion period standard (2
 Wichert> weeks). Which means that I can issue the call for votes next
 Wichert> week.

        I think in this case a two week discussion period is nowhere
 near long enough for a contentios issue like this. 

 Darren> Manoj, I respect your opinions and if you don't like the
 Darren> constitution or the way the constitution works, then that's
 Darren> one issue but to (essentially since it falls in my
 Darren> responsiblity) accuse me of not following the constitution is
 Darren> not fair.

        I do apologize for appearing to cast slurs at your handling of
 your post. You see, it was totally unclear to me that we were talking
 about general resolutions-- and they would be your responsibility
 only if they are general resolutions.

 You'll never be the man your mother was!
Manoj Srivastava   <srivasta@debian.org>  <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
Key C7261095 fingerprint = CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05  CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E

Reply to: