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

Re: [CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT] Disambiguation of 4.1.5

On Sun, Nov 12, 2000 at 04:09:37PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 12, 2000 at 10:34:43PM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> > i second proposal A but do not second proposal B.
> The whole point of Manoj's mail was to present a joint proposal,
> which (AIUI) requires seconds as such.  Its purpose is to place
> both proposals on the same ballot, so that they may be voted on
> simultaneously.

manoj presented two proposals, one on his own behalf and one on your
behalf. i chose to second one and not the other because i happen to only
support one of the proposals and not both of them.

do you have some kind of a problem with that? 

should i be required to support your proposal against my will and
judgement? i'm certainly not going to vote for it so you lose nothing -
and i imagine that you should be able to pick up the required number of
sponsors for your proposal anyway...and if not then your proposal SHOULD
be dropped due to lack of support.

> Proposals A and B both already, separately have reached Call For Votes
> status (they did in October).  Your seconding of either one at this
> point is ineffectual.

you contradict yourself - first you say "...which (AIUI) requires
seconds..." then you say my seconding is ineffectual. i don't
particularly care which is correct, but if it turns out that seconding
is required for the current set of proposals then i did the right thing
by seoonding the one i agree with and not seconding the one i disagree

i haven't caught up with all of the back mail in debian-vote yet. i've
just got back from 2 months in india. while i intend to read through it
all at the soonest opportunity, it's disturbingly unpleasant to wade
through message after message of childish bickering, especially when it
is historical bickering.

it would seem to me that if both were seconded in early october then
they might also have passed the 4 week expiry period. in any case, it
seems apparent that both you and manoj agreed to put any CFV on hold
until you could come up with a mutually consistent set of proposals.


craig sanders

Reply to: