On Mon, Nov 13, 2000 at 05:36:23PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > On Mon, Nov 13, 2000 at 02:33:56AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 13, 2000 at 03:32:41PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > > > But I don't see how this fits in with the constitution. We're operating, > > > I presume, under the `standard resolution procedure', ie appendix A. We've > > > has a proposal (Branden's, I guess) which has been proposed and seconded, > > > and we've had discussion and an amendment (Manoj's) which has apparently > > > received the appropriate number of seconds (A.1.1), and is presumably > > > being treated under A.1.3. > > Wrong, wrong, wrong. > > Manoj's and my proposals are wholly independent procedurally. This has > > been stated time and time again. One of them is NOT an amendment to the > > other. > > Then how can they possibly be voted on together? Under A.2.3. -- G. Branden Robinson | There's nothing an agnostic can't do Debian GNU/Linux | if he doesn't know whether he believes branden@debian.org | in it or not. http://www.debian.org/~branden/ | -- Graham Chapman
Attachment:
pgpWmjXkHnRg7.pgp
Description: PGP signature