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 (Josselin Mouette's started as an amendment to a now withdrawn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
proposal.
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: