On Sat, Nov 01, 2003 at 03:36:30PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > > > If it does, and is reasked, what's to stop a group of 6 people[1] from > > > proposing an "amendment" that guts the original proposal down to nothing > > ^^^^^^^^^^^ > > What are the scare quotes for? Did we not already have this discussion? > No, but it obviously suits you to think so, judging by your inapposite > example. *sigh* http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2000/debian-vote-200006/msg00040.html ] I was wondering why you didn't just propose a resolution of your own, since ] this "amendement" guts the existing proposal (leaving it with a title that ] contradicts its body), until I reviewed the constitution: ] It's easier to bog down John's proposal in parliamentary bureaucracy if you ] couch your diametrically opposed proposal as an amendement. http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2002/debian-vote-200211/msg00257.html http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/branden_amendments/ Lose the scare quotes, and lose the attitude. > Better: > [b] Debian should retain support for the x86 architecture ] A.2.2: The proposer or any sponsor of a resolution may call for a vote ] on that resolution and all related amendments. Unrelated amendments should not be voted on in the same ballot. I have no idea why you would imagine that Debian developers would try such idiocy, nor why you would imagine the secretary would play along with it. > > And I know we've already had this discussion. > No, we haven't. No, this particular range of paranoid lunacy is completely new. Congratulations! Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/> I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred. Australian DMCA (the Digital Agenda Amendments) Under Review! -- http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/blog/copyright/digitalagenda
Attachment:
pgpW1bbUoquKC.pgp
Description: PGP signature