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

Re: The Sourceless software in the kernel source GR

Raul Miller wrote:

> 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
> A
> B
> C
> D
> E
> 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.

Totally reasonable.

> 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
> presented.

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: