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

Re: Proposed wording for the SC modification

On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 10:19:49PM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> Can the Secretary clarify again what will hapen if Peter's option is voted ?
>  - What if Peter does not think that a second vote is necessary, but the
>    Secretary does ?
>  - What if a second vote is organised, but not option gets a 3:1 majority ?
>  - What if no second vote is organised ?
>  - What if Peter's option is voted with less than a 3:1 majority ?

Is this really so important?  If a 3:1 majority that supports this exists,
they can easily ammend the SC as they see fit, possibly with another GR to
decide whether to ammend it or just override it.

If a simple majority exists, but not a 3:1 one, then we're in for stormy
weather.  Too bad.  Note that I don't like 3:1 requisites either [1], but
since I had to accept it when it was against my preferred choice [2], it's
only fair that others do the same now.

[1] http://www.debian.org/vote/2003/gr_sec415_tally.txt
[2] http://www.debian.org/vote/2004/gr_non_free_tally.txt

Robert Millan

  The DRM opt-in fallacy: "Your data belongs to us. We will decide when (and
  how) you may access your data; but nobody's threatening your freedom: we
  still allow you to remove your data and not access it at all."

Reply to: