On Tue, 19 Sep 2006, Thijs Kinkhorst wrote: > On Tue, 2006-09-19 at 10:09 -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > > The project should decide how it wants to handle filibustering, > > if it feels like doing anything about it, of course. But now, any GR > > has a veto contingent of only 6 developers. > > How about we see how to solve that when it actually happens? As far > as I can see, in the case you're refering too, the deadline has only > be moved into the future *once*; quite different from "indefinately" > and I've seen nothing to believe that this group you refer to is > interested in excercising this loophole to veto the proposal. I'm not sure which group is being referred to here, but if it's the change to a proposal that I presented, I have no problem with it being interpreted as a change under A.1.6 if that's appropriate. [I had assumed that it was clear what that proposal was the entire time, so whatever the Secretary decides as far as to reset or not reset the discussion period is fine by me.] [With our present system, filibustering could be continued indefinetly by any proposer, so long as enough seconders did not object... but doing that intentionally would be pretty egregious, and hasn't happened as far as I know.] Don Armstrong -- Never underestimate the power of human stupidity. -- Robert Heinlein http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature