Re: SC changes
[Yet again, I'm subscribed to -vote. Do *NOT* Cc: me.[1]]
On Thu, 01 Apr 2004, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> I don't have the arrogance to just declare "this is the best way"
> without hearing discussion, which is what I was trying to invite.
>
> Sadly, Debian seems to head for the meta-discussion by a sort of
> nervous tick.
I gathered that you were interested in seeing the vote split up into
multiple votes on every single section because you weren't happy with
the amendment in total rather than inviting a discussion on the
perceived issue(s) with different section(s) of the amendment.
> So, can we discuss the different sections separately, and then perhaps
> replace the current proposals (much of which I do like) with
> section-by-section consideration, so that we can get each section as
> good as possible?
Why not start a discussion dealing with the actual issue(s) then?
If there are sections which you don't particularly like, bring them up
for discussion.
Then if you find people who feel likewise, propose an amendment, get
it seconded by the people who feel likewise, and vote for it when it
appears on the ballot.
I, for one, look forward to hearing what you have to say.
Don Armstrong
1: Considering you were trumpeting the debian list guidelines
recently, could you please consider following them?
--
The sheer ponderousness of the panel's opinion ... refutes its thesis
far more convincingly than anything I might say. The panel's labored
effort to smother the Second Amendment by sheer body weight has all
the grace of a sumo wrestler trying to kill a rattlesnake by sitting
on it--and is just as likely to succeed.
-- Alex Kozinski in Silveira V Lockyer
http://www.donarmstrong.com
http://rzlab.ucr.edu
Reply to: