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

Re: Proposal - Deferment of Changes from GR 2004-003

On Thu, Apr 29, 2004 at 05:00:12PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 29, 2004 at 09:48:46AM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 29, 2004 at 10:11:24AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > > Craig Sanders <cas@taz.net.au>:
> > > > i propose an amendment that deletes everything but clause 1 of this
> > > > proposal,
> > > > so that the entire proposal now reads:
> > > > 
> > > >    that the amendments to the Social Contract contained within the
> > > >    General Resolution "Editorial Amendments To The Social Contract"
> > > >    (2004 vote 003) be immediately rescinded.
> > 
> > > I second this proposal.
> > 
> > > While I'm convinced that it wasn't meant as such (contrary to some
> > > remarks I've previously made on IRC), the title of the 003 GR was
> > > deceptive, and may have been at the cause of the current outcome. It's
> > > only fair to do it again, even if I agree with most of the changes in
> > > the GR.

> > If you agree with most of the changes in the GR, wouldn't it be better
> > to propose something that fixes the parts you don't agree with, rather
> > than seconding an amendment doesn't represent your actual views?

> No. One important part of voting over issues is "communication".
> Communicate to the people that are going to vote exactly _what_ they're
> voting on, and give them enough information to make up their own mind
> about the issue.

If there aren't enough people who actually object to the new SC that
stand up and second Craig's amendment, I think that's a pretty clear
indication that there was nothing improper about the outcome of the
previous vote.  There's been a lot of mailing list noise about the
result, but it looks like you're the first to actually second Craig's
amendment. <shrug>  Which is certainly allowed, but I think you're
mistaken if you think people are going to want to repeal these SC
modifications and then start the process over -- if you have ideas about
what's wrong with the new SC, I would appreciate it if you voiced
those now.

Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: