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

Re: The Sourceless software in the kernel source GR

Manoj Srivastava wrote:

> On Tue, 19 Sep 2006 08:40:08 +0200, Sven Luther <sven.luther@wanadoo.fr>
> 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,

People don't want that -- not in the case where anyone who can read
could figure out what was resolution text and what wasn't, anyway.

>  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.

If the material seconded contains the statement "This is the text of the
GR" or equivalent with a "boxed" piece of text, then the "second" should be
considered a second of that boxed portion.  There is nothing else rational
to do.

If any delegate objects to *that* , they're wrong and please call them out
by name.

On the other hand, if the material seconded does not contain 'boxed' text,
the entire material seconded must be considered the seconded GR.

So for Don Armstrong's proposal, the proposal with the intro material might
well be considered different from seconding it without the intro material,
and the secretary should conservatively accept only seconds of one of the
two versions (Don's choice, obviously).

But stupid differences which are very obviously not part of the GR, like the
proposer's .signature, should not be considered significant.

>         At this point, I am unsure what to do --- technically, since
>  the proposals seconded are unlikely to be identical, byte for byte,

If the above is done, only whitespace and decorative "cut here" material 
will differ.  Resolutions are identical if they are identical word for word
and punctuation for punctuation, not 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.

How about a secretary with *half* a brain?  :-)

>         manoj

Nathanael Nerode  <neroden@fastmail.fm>

Bush admitted to violating FISA and said he was proud of it.
So why isn't he in prison yet?...

Reply to: