On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 04:03:48PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> I am away from home, so I can't sign this email. However, we
> can not hold a vote until the minimal discussion period is over,
> which makes it Feb 23,rd at the earliest, so I'll probably do it Feb
> 25th.
I'm pretty sure that's incorrect, as per my mail:
> > The original proposal became formal with Roger Leigh's second, on the
> > 12th of January, and as no further amendments were accepted, a call for
> > a vote is appropriate any time two weeks after that (from the 26th of
> > January), as per A.2(1) and A.2(4).
4.2(4): the minimum discussion period is 2 weeks (and hasn't been varied)
A.2(4): the minimum discussion period is counted from the time
(a) the last formal amendment was accepted
(b) the whole resolution was proposed if no amendments have been
proposed and accepted
A.1(1): "amendments may be made formal by being proposed and sponsored",
so there were three formal amendments, Adeodato's first, Anton's,
and Adeodato's second.
A.1(2): "A formal amendment may be accepted by the resolution's proposer",
which didn't happen for any of these, so there were no formal amendments
that have been proposed and accepted, so (b) holds
The whole resolution was proposed on 11th Jan 2006 21:53:43 +1000, and
received sufficient sponsors at 12th Jan 2006 09:59:20 +0000.
So the minimum discussion period ended on the 26th Jan 2006 09:59:20
+0000, afaics. Since the initial draft of the GR was posted 1st January,
we've already been discussing this for six weeks, so I don't think
there's any need for another two weeks on this.
> Look at section A.1.6, which specifies what changes to a
> proposal do not restart the minimum discussion period.
That allows the original resolution to be changed in some cases without the
discussion period restarting.
Cheers,
aj
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature