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

Re: Interpreting the constitution on discussion periods

On Sun, 24 Sep 2006, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>  For example, the firmware proposals are separate proposals
>  (Josselin Mouette's started as an amendment to a now withdrawn
>  proposal, Frederik Schueler's was a separate to start with, Don
>  Armstrong's seems to be a separate GR, since it does not mention
>  which proposal it could possibly amend) ;

It was intended to be an amendment of Steve's proposal taking the
contrary view; I didn't say anything about the disposition of firmware
in etch in it because I thought that was a separate issue from Steve's

As far as placing it or not placing it on a separate ballot, it would
be nice to have it separate, as it deals with clarifying the firmware
problem before exceptions are granted, but I don't have any objections
to it being on the same ballot as the other options. [In case of a
split, I would expect the clarification option to be overridden to the
extent necessary by the other options; either by being voted on
slightly before or by a specific amendment saying such.]

Don Armstrong

Junkies were all knitted together in a loose global macrame, the
intercontinental freemasonry of narcotics.
 -- Bruce Sterling, _Holy Fire_ p257

http://www.donarmstrong.com              http://rzlab.ucr.edu

Reply to: