Re: The Sourceless software in the kernel source GR
On Tue, Sep 19, 2006 at 10:02:08AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Sep 2006 08:40:08 +0200, Sven Luther <email@example.com> said:
> > On Mon, Sep 18, 2006 at 10:27:12PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >> Proponents of various various amendments to the GR should feel free
> >> to send me a couple of paragraphs in HTML markup to
> >> introduce/explain the resolutions they are proposing. Feel free to
> >> include external links to more extensice body of supporting
> >> material in the paragraphs you send me, but please keep theese
> >> paragraphs short and to the point.
> >> I certainly don't want to include hundreds of lines of additional
> >> material directly on the vote page. Please indicate if the content
> >> is preambulatory or postambulatory.
> >> manoj
> > hi Manoj, ...
> > I wonder where Frederik's proposal fits in this ?
> Since it has been decreed that the secretary has no discretion
> in putting up properly proposed and seconded text, this request is
> now moot.
> We do have an issue now with people seconding extraneous text,
> including signatures and extra material in the email; since if people
> want a secretary with no powers to decide what is and is not
> resolution text, then if person A seconds a proposal with
> accompanying matter (someone just seconded Don Armstrongs proposal,
> and did not elide the vote.d.o fragment); and person B carefully
> edits and seconds a subset of the original email, then they are not
> seconding the same sequence of bytes.
> Previously, I would have exercised judgement -- but I have
> been informed a Debian delegate that that was gross and egregious
> abuse of my power as a secretary.
> At this point, I am unsure what to do --- technically, since
> the proposals seconded are unlikely to be identical, byte for byte,
> unless people get less sloppy about the process, a secretary without
> a brain can't count the seconds as belonging to the same proposal.
Ah, well. Let me propose a new GR then ...