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

Re: An ammendment (Re: Formal CFV: General Resolution to Abolish Non-Free)

On Sat, Jun 10, 2000 at 10:44:24PM -0400, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 10, 2000 at 05:22:43PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 07, 2000 at 11:03:33PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
> > > Proposed by: John Goerzen <jgoerzen@complete.org>
> > I wish to propose an ammendment to the proposed resolution as follows.
> I was wondering why you didn't just propose a resolution of your own, 

An amendment (with one m, grumble), under the constitution, is either
accepted by the proposer of the resolution (which ain't gunna happen)
and all its sponsors and thus replaced the original motion, or it is listed
as an option on a ballot produced by the secretary so that the developer
population as a whole can decide on which form they'd like the resolution
to take.

Having a separate proposal would require two ballots, that would possibly
turn out to be mutually contradictory.

>     3. If a formal amendment is not accepted, or one of the sponsors of
>        the resolution does not agree with the acceptance by the proposer
>        of a formal amendment, the amendment remains as an amendment and
>        will be voted on.
> It's easier to bog down John's proposal in parliamentary bureaucracy if you
> couch your diametrically opposed proposal as an amendement.

As I understand it, at this point two votes need to take place: one to
determine what form the resolution should take so that developers may
choose between John's original resolution, or the one I posted (or any
others that are proposed and seconded), and a second vote as to whether
the chosen resolution will be accepted. The constitution provides for
these two votes to be handled by the one ballot, so we may end up with
votes something like:

	[1] [Y] ABOLISH non-free
        [3] [N] Create ADD-ONS
	[2] [ ] FURTHER dicussion

(that is, a preference for the resolution to be ABOLISH, FURTHER, ADD-ONS,
STATUS-QUO, and only willing to back the resolution if it takes the form

> I urge John to reject this amendement per section A.1.3. (3. above) of the
> Constitution.  If he does not, then I, as a sponsor (see Message-ID:
> <[🔎] 20000608173832.C870@ecn.purdue.edu>), do so disagree.

Certainly, I would be shocked if he did.


Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG encrypted mail preferred.

  ``We reject: kings, presidents, and voting.
                 We believe in: rough consensus and working code.''
                                      -- Dave Clark

Attachment: pgp_r9qN9xQZ9.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: