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 outcome. > 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:
pgp9H9ml4bReO.pgp
Description: PGP signature