On Thu, Dec 01, 2005 at 08:21:53AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > > Erm, as a point of order, as per A.2(4), the discussion period > > begins when the resolution was proposed (18th Nov) or the last > > amendment was accepted (which hasn't happened; the last amendment > > not accepted was formalised on the 22nd though). I don't see any > > opportunity for the secretary (or anyone else) to choose another > > date, but I might be missing something. (Also, the original > > proposal was on the 15th) > I do not see any announcements on the only mailing list that > the developers are supposed to be reading, namely, d-d-a, so I am > taking the postion that a full two weeks should be allowed for > discussion from the time that an announcement made it to that mailing > list. You don't have that choice; the "publicly-readable electronic mailing list deisgnated byt eh Project Leader's Delegate(s)" is this one, not d-d-a, as per http://www.debian.org/vote/howto_follow. The requirements for the discussion period are quite explicit, and only the end date can be varied, and that only by the project leader or the proposal's proposer or sponsors. > Given the surprise expressed by some people when the d-d-a > announcement came out, and the flurry of comments on this mailing > list after that announcement, I am sure this is the right thing to > do. Giving people time to discuss it certainly is; making up dates other than those required by the constition isn't. The whole point of a constitution is so we don't make things up as we go along. Cheers, aj
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature