Re: Proposal to delay the decition of the DPL of the withdrawal of the Package Policy Committee delegation
On Fri, Oct 27, 2006 at 09:16:05AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> 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.
It does not matter, since in this special situation the vote is
supposed to be 'immediate'.
> 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 ?
This is completely irrelevant for the question about whether the
current vote is being called in violation of constitution.
Jurij Smakov firstname.lastname@example.org
Key: http://www.wooyd.org/pgpkey/ KeyID: C99E03CC