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

Re: The Sourceless software in the kernel source GR

On Tue, Sep 19, 2006 at 10:15:28PM -0400, Branden Robinson wrote:
> I don't think it is too much to ask that the proposers and/or seconders of
> General Resolutions create and maintain wiki pages, for example, when their
> initiatives demand a lot of background material to appropriately inform and
> persuade the electorate.

No one has asked that the vote.d.o pages include "background material".  I
have asked that the text of resolutions not be misleadingly edited to
exclude preambulatory material which has been properly proposed and seconded
as part of that resolution.  This is about whether developers are being
denied the ability to put position statements to a vote that include
preambulatory material as part of the statement, about whether their fellows
are being denied the opportunity to vote on those position statements, and
about whether after the vote is concluded, the section of the debian.org
website set aside for listing these position statements is going to include
the text that was proposed and seconded, or a subset that complies with the
current Project Secretary's notion of what constitutes a "proper"

If there is a disagreement among the proposer and sponsors of a resolution
over what the resolution *is*, then of course it's not ready to be put to a
vote.  If OTOH it's been stated clearly by the proposer what text is being
submitted to the developership for ratification, and there are no objections
from the seconders, how is it proper for the PS to put something other than
this text, or a direct reference to this text, on the ballot?

That is the state that <http://www.debian.org/vote/2006/vote_004> was in
last time I looked at it; anything not preceded by a number had been elided,
and each ballot option was prefaced by the prejudicial statement that "[t]he
actual text of the resolution is as follows. Please note that this does not
include preambles to the resolutions, [...]", implying that preambles are
not part of the resolution and are not votable.  Now the page includes the
full original mail body from each of the proposers; well, this is at least
an improvement over the previous state of affairs in that it is no longer
excluding parts of the proposed resolution, but it also seems Manoj is being
deliberately perverse in claiming that Don's Burning Man [vac] notice is
part of the resolution. :/

Steve Langasek                   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer                   to set it on, and I can move the world.
vorlon@debian.org                                   http://www.debian.org/

Reply to: