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

Re: GFDL GR, vote please!

On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 09:02:04PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >>> 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
>         Adeodato's new proposal was formally accepted yesterday.

According to the usage in the constitution, it was made formal yesterday,
by receiving enough seconds. The term "formal" in relation to GRs is
used only in A.1 and A.2(4).

A.1(1) indicates an amendment can be made formal simply by being proposed
and sponsored; or directly by the original proposer. This has happened
for Adeodato's amendment, making it a formal amendment.

A.1(2) indicates "accepted" amendments are distinct from "formal
amendments" by providing a means for an amendment that is already
formal to become accepted. A.1(3) provides the other branch of that, by
indicating what should happen when "a formal amendment is not accepted".

The only uses of the term "accepted" are in A.1(2,3,4), A.2(4), and
A.4; A.1(2) and A.1(4) talk specifically about being "accepted by the
original proposer", and A.1(3) also talks about the "acceptance by the
proposer". A.4 talks primarily about "unaccepted" amendments, which already
have sponsors and which may be "kept alive" should the proposer withdraw
the amendment, or should any sponsors withdraw their sponsorship.

That leaves A.2(4) which spells out that the amendments it talks about
must both be "formal" and "accepted", and "proposed and accepted".

>  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.

I don't believe there's an error in the above -- it's a consistent
reading of the terms used in the constitution. The alternative reading
you propose means that "accepted" means one thing in three paragraphs
immediately preceeding the section we're talking about, and a paragraph
shortly after it; but something completely different -- and redundant,
given the formality is already specified -- in the one we're looking at.

>         If there is an option on the ballot, there should be adequate
>  time to discuss it. 

Certainly; and there has been. Adeodato's update is a change of wording
the reasons for which have already been discussed in depth over the past
few weeks.

In any event, the secretary does have absolute discretion in delaying
running the vote after the call for vote comes out, so if you feel it's
appropriate you can delay it for two weeks or two months anyway. But
that's a different thing to saying that the minimum discussion period
/requires/ the vote to be delayed an additional two weeks.

Beyond the "six people can delay a vote indefinitely" consideration,
it also introduces a different problem; namely that delaying the call
for a vote so someone working on amendment can tidy it up becomes a bad
tradeoff for the initial proposer -- I could've gotten the CFV out three
weeks earlier than you're suggesting if I'd ignored Adeodato's desire
to improve his amendment (and avoid the 3:1 requirement) by calling for
a vote at the start of the week.

>  Indeed, a new option on the ballot may present
>  novel idea, and having a vote without discussion of the new option
>  seems ... odd.

Even if the vote were automated and had started immediately, there's
still two weeks in which people can discuss the issue and change their
vote. And this topic's been under discussion for years already, and this
GR itself has already in discussion for over a month; more discussion
isn't what we need here.

> > 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
>  adeodato's proposal.

As one of the sponsors, you can satisfy that desire yourself as well as
anyone else can :)

> >> 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.

That's utterly absurd: the proposals are directly contradictory; they're
not even remotely "independent". Besides which they were all proposed
as amendments.

In summary, I don't think a pedantic reading of the constitution justifies
delaying the vote; and I don't think there's anything much still to be
said that would full up two weeks of discussion. Having the issue be
undecided during the DPL debates doesn't seem much of a win either.

Again, can we please move on to a vote on this issue?


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: