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

Re: GRs, irrelevant amendments, and insincere voting

> > 	If this is the case, the proposal should be so amended.  There
> >  would be no problem running two votes, either in sequence, or
> >  concurrently. 

On Tue, Nov 04, 2003 at 03:35:15PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> I'll give it very serious consideration, but first I would like some
> guidance from you in the form of a reply to Message-ID:
> <[🔎] 20031102100909.GW2495@deadbeast.net>.

I'm not sure what you expect here.


Seems to posit that there is some specific number of ballots required
to resolve the issue of people proposing amendments which do not
incorporate text or ideas from the original proposal (or, perhaps, that
you find discordant?).  And then you go on to ask what the value is for
this number.

[1] Why is this an issue?

[2] Resolve how?

[3] Why would you assume that anyone could associate any kind of number
with such a vague problem statement?

[4] How does "number of ballots" shed any light on anything of any
interest to anyone?

More fundamentally: this whole thread devolves to some bogus "veto power"
which does not exist, and therefore cannot be discussed in a rational

Amendments do not dispose of the original proposal, except with the
agreement of the proposer and seconds.


Reply to: