Re: GRs, irrelevant amendments, and insincere voting

[Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org>]

On Sun, 2 Nov 2003 03:12:57 -0500, Branden Robinson <branden@debian.org> said: 

> On Sat, Nov 01, 2003 at 10:49:29PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> On Sat, 1 Nov 2003 23:38:41 -0500, Anthony DeRobertis
>> <asd@suespammers.org> said:
>> > No. It can cause C to win by removing A and B from the running
>> > for no good reason. That's the problem.
>>
>> Only if such ballots are deemed proper procedure.

> I reviewed what I thought were the applicable clauses of the
> Constitution in my original message in this subthread[1].

	The constitution does say that the secretary has control over
matters of procedure.

> There doesn't appear to be anything to prevent such ballots from
> being prepared, apart from self-restraint on the part of the
> developers from proposing orthogonal (what I've been calling
> "irrelevant") amendments to a proposal.  Obviously what we are
> exploring here is what happens if and when that self-restraint
> fails.

	The constitution does not say that we must take the next 10
 issues, and run them along with the next DPL election all in one
 vote; that would be, in my opinion, procedurally wrong.

	Or even take a few dozen issues and run just one vote; again,
 that is the wrong procedure.

	Unrelated options get separate debating periods, ballots, and
 votes. This is a procedural issue.

	manoj
-- 
Why don't somebody print the truth about our present economic
condition? We spent years of wild buying on credit, everything under
the sun, whether we needed it or not, and now we are having to pay for
it, howling like a pet coon.  This would be a great world to dance in
if we didn't have to pay the fiddler. The Best of Will Rogers
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