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

Re: Proposal to delay the decition of the DPL of the withdrawal of the Package Policy Committee delegation

On Fri, Oct 27, 2006 at 12:03:33AM -0700, Jurij Smakov wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 27, 2006 at 08:46:21AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> [...]
> > You are overpassing your rights as secretary, it is not for you as secretary
> > to call for a vote, or take any such actions, but it is only the proposer and
> > the seconders who can do such.
> Did you actually read this passage from constitution which was quoted 
> in Secretary's message? Section 4.2.2 describes in detail the 
> procedure for delaying a decision by DPL, and I believe that 
> everything is done in accordance with it.

Not really, but i read the way resolution votes where handled (Annex A.),
which says :

  A.2.1 The proposer or a sponsor of a motion or an amendment may call for
  a vote, providing that the minimum discussion period (if any) has elapsed.

It may indeed have missed the point about reverting decisions : 

  4.2.4 If the decision is put on hold, an immediate vote is held to determine
  whether the decision will stand until the full vote on the decision is made
  or whether the implementation of the original decision will be delayed until
  then. There is no quorum for this immediate procedural vote.

But nowhere in section 4.2 does it speak about who issues the call for vote,
while A.4.2 isvery clear about this.

In any case, independent of the actual text, there is evident conflict of
interest, both here as ian jackson pointed ou, and in the non-free vote, and
we need to engage in some reflection as to not see this happen again. Do you
have anything constructive to say about this ? 


Sven Luther

Reply to: