Re: Ad hoc and spontaneous voting
Hi,
>>"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:
Subjerct: [GENERAL RESOLUTION] ....
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
calls.
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.
manoj
--
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: