Re: Proposed ballot for the constitutional amendment
On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 18:25:12 +0100, Jochen Voss <firstname.lastname@example.org> said:
> 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
> 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
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
>> 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.
The mistake you make is in trying to figure it out. Tennessee Williams
Manoj Srivastava <email@example.com> <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