Re: GFDL GR, vote please!
On 9 Feb 2006, Anthony Towns told this:
> 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
> I'm pretty sure that's incorrect, as per my mail:
You are entitled to an opinion, of course.
>>> 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
> (a) the last formal amendment was accepted
Adeodato's new proposal was formally accepted yesterday. I
think your error is in interpretng the accepted to imply the original
GR propoer accepting the amendment, I see it as an amendment being
accepted as an alternate on the ballot.
If there is an option on the ballot, there should be adequate
time to discuss it. Indeed, a new option on the ballot may present
novel idea, and having a vote without discussion of the new option
seems ... odd.
> (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.
Adeodato's new proposal has not had any discussion that I can
see. I would be interested in the thoughts of people who sponsored
the opriginal GR on why the original deserves to be voted above
>> 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.
I think distinct options on a ballot count as independent
proposals for related issues.
The problem here (as someon else stated) is that when multiple dists
use the same package format it only gives a "false sense of
compatibility". -- Stephen Carpenter
Manoj Srivastava <email@example.com> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C