Re: Call for seconds: Suspension of the changes of the Project's membership procedures.
On 25/10/08 at 10:10 +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> Hi all,
> I have integrated the changes suggested by Frans, Robert, and aspell
> (wdiff attached).
> Here is the amended proposal:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> - Following the announcement of the 22nd of October on the debian-devel-announce
> mailing list (Message-id: <firstname.lastname@example.org>) about "Developer
> - Given the importance of defining how the Project accepts new members;
> - Because of the strong opposition to the method used to prepare, discuss and
> decide the announced changes, and without judging their validity;
> - In accordance with the paragraphs 4.1(3) and 4.2(2.2) of the Constitution;
> The Debian Project, by way of a general resolution of its developers, decides:
> The changes announced the 22nd of October on the debian-devel-announce
> mailing list (Message-id: <email@example.com>) are
> suspended [§4.1(3)]. This suspension is effective immediately [§4.2(2.2)].
> In addition, the developers make the following statement:
> The delegates of the Project leader are asked to not take decisions that are
> not consensual about the membership procedures of the Project, and to let
> these procedures change by way of a general resolution if no consensus
> can be reached.
I've thought about this a bit more.
I fear that this GR will look like "vote yes if you don't want change."
I'm personally fine with changes to the membership process. But I want
them to be decided after an healthy, public, discussion, and probably
also a vote (because we are not going to agree on which proposal is the
Should we add something to the GR to address this problem? Or simply
explain the reasoning behind the GR by different means, during the vote?
| Lucas Nussbaum
| firstname.lastname@example.org http://www.lucas-nussbaum.net/ |
| jabber: email@example.com GPG: 1024D/023B3F4F |