Re: Proposed ballot for the constitutional amendment
On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 18:25:12 +0100, Jochen Voss <voss@seehuhn.de> said:
> Hi,
> On Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 11:04:16AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> Discussion" choice is unranked, then it is equal to all other
>> unranked choices, if any -- no special consideration is given to
>> the "Further Discussion" choice by the voting software).
> If the software implements the quota and supermajority checking the
> last half sentence becomes false. Maybe everything after the "if
> any" should be omitted?
>> your ballot; the voting mechanism shall not be able to decrypt your
>> message.
> I'm no native speaker of english, but that "shall" seems strange to
> me. Maybe a "will" would be more appropriate?
No. I was taught English which may well be considered archaic
in todays post-modernistic world; however, the usage falls under the
the colored future system (described in
http://www.bartleby.com/116/213.html).
In an expression of the speaker's (not necessarily the
subject's) wish, intention, menace, assurance, consent, refusal,
promise, offer, permission, command, &c. -- in such sentences the
first person has will/would, the second and third persons
shall/should.
>> Proposal B: Clarifies status of non-technical documents. Does *not
>>
>> * create a class of Foundation Documents.
> The layout is broken here.
Hmm. That is not reflected in the on disk ballot.txt file -- I
guess something went wrong in the email version. I'll look into this.
manoj
--
The mistake you make is in trying to figure it out. Tennessee Williams
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Reply to: