On Mon, Nov 13, 2000 at 11:07:24AM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote: > 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. No, he presented a proposed *ballot*, intended to serve for both pending GR's . One atomic unit. The bits that comprise it have already been proposed, seconded, and seen Calls for Votes. > should i be required to support your proposal against my will and > judgement? Of course not. I'm quite accustomed to you opposing anything I propose on the grounds that it comes from me. > > 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. Manoj's proposed ballots, made within the past few days, is what (AIUI) requires seconds, in the sense that those who proposed and seconded the original proposals must be happy with it. According to Manoj's and my Calls for Votes, you did not second either of these, so it does not appear that you have any special standing to object to the ballot. Manoj's and my GR's of early October no longer require seconds; they accrued the requisite number weeks ago. So, either way you slice it, your attempt at a second is ineffectual. Either Manoj's ballot proposal qua ballot proposal requires seconds -- and you didn't offer to second it *as* a joint proposal, or the individual pieces require seconds, which they've already accrued. The only contradiction here is the one you seek to construct through careful omission of facts that inconvenience your enterprise of personal aggression and argumentation against me. > i don't particularly care which is correct Perhaps you need a better command of the facts before accusing me of making contradictory statements. > i haven't caught up with all of the back mail in debian-vote yet. Perhaps you need a better command of the facts before accusing me of making contradictory statements. > it would seem to me that if both were seconded in early october then > they might also have passed the 4 week expiry period. Perhaps you need a better command of the facts. Neither of them have expired. I suggest you review the list archives. > 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. That is what we agreed to orally in Atlanta, but it is beginning to appear that Manoj and I have differing recollections on exactly what we agreed to. The proposal as it stands is unacceptable to me (and several others have pointed out problems with it). However I'm not raising any formal objections at the moment since it appears possible that Manoj is willing to amend it sufficiently to address my concerns. If that is done, I'll be able to get behind it and we can procede with the constitutional exigesis. The constitution doesn't say that ballot formats per se have to be voted on. My assumption is that, in this case, as long as * The Project Secretary * Manoj * I * Manoj's seconds * my seconds can all agree on a ballot format, that it can go forward (as a ballot) without further seconds or voting. The point of the present discussion is to determine whether all these parties in fact agree, and to get the ballot into a format that is easily understood. It may be helpful to consult http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote-0010/ http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote-0011/ to get a better grip on the present scenario. -- G. Branden Robinson | "There is no gravity in space." Debian GNU/Linux | "Then how could astronauts walk around branden@debian.org | on the Moon?" http://www.debian.org/~branden/ | "Because they were wearing heavy boots."
Attachment:
pgpAPjfSQ0RyD.pgp
Description: PGP signature