[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: GRs, irrelevant amendments, and insincere voting

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.



] 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.


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. 


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

Reply to: