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

Re: Splitting out Choice #1 from vote_004

On Tuesday 26 September 2006 01:40, Don Armstrong wrote:
> I agree that there are practical implications, and that something
> should be done about them, but I think that they're out of scope for a
> resolution whose purpose is to clarify how DFSG #2 should be
> interpreted.

I stand by my opinion that calling for a vote on clarifying the 
interpretation of DFSG #2 without having the implications and alternatives 
represented on the ballot and in the discussion will result in a biassed 

> The door for amendments to the proposal I have proposed is open, and
> remains open, until the someone calls for a vote.

The three current proposals are currently published as being part of the 
same ballot and I for one have so far based my decision not to press my own 
proposal for a large part on that fact.

The point of my last paragraph was that if your proposal is split off, a 
totally new situation is created and thus a decent period should be allowed 
to submit new amendments/proposals. Calling a vote within a few days after 
the split is officially decided and announced is IMO procedurally not 
acceptable (and AFAIK the split has not yet been decided, nor formally 
announced). That would be a perfect example of "tactical vote calling" as 
Manoj described at the start of this tread.

Frans Pop

Attachment: pgpbUhA0HjmKT.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: