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

Re: The Sourceless software in the kernel source GR

On 9/21/06, Nick Phillips <nwp@nz.lemon-computing.com> wrote:
On which subject, does anyone else think that it would be useful to
leave debian-vote for formal proposals/seconds (possibly moderated), and
another list e.g. debian-vote-discuss (or even just -project) for the
flame^Wdiscussions that follow?

It would make it a lot easier to tell what was an actual proposal and
what was not, what had been seconded and what had not (each proposal
gets its own thread, to which the only responses are seconds).

Except, that's solving the problem which did not occur.

The question I see Manoj posing is not "was this message intended
to present a proposal, or not".

The question I see Manoj posing is "which part of this proposal
message is the actual proposal".

Personally, I'd say that if the situation is so ambiguous that it's not
clear whether what people are seconding is the same as what the
proposer has proposed that we are not dealing with a valid resolution.

Consider a general case:  Proposal message contains statements

Some sequential fragment of this message is the proposal.   That
means that the proposal might be A, AB, ABC, ABCD, ABCDE,
B, BC, BCD, BCDE, C, CD, CDE, D, DE, E.  This might dilute
seconds by a factor as high as 15.

In cases where the secretary feels the burden of interpretation is
too high, I think the secretary should ask that the proposal and
seconds be re-issued, with the ambiguities resolved.

In cases where the secretary's request is refused, I think the
secretary would be completely justified as treating each possible
resolution as a separate proposal.  Though, to be fair, the
secretary might wish to present each plausibly seconded
possibility as having been seconded, even where this means
that a single "seconded" message seconds more than one
potential resolution.

And if someone is tempted to claim "abuse of power" here, I think that
it's pretty obvious that the abuse would be on the part of those who
refuse to participate in resolving the ambiguities they themselves


Reply to: