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

Re: First call for votes: GR: Project membership procedures

Hash: SHA1

On 07-12-2008 18:33, Margarita Manterola wrote:
> On 12/7/08, Stefano Zacchiroli <zack@debian.org> wrote:
>>> - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
>>  > 5efca670-0e7b-480e-9899-ecce3446e087
>>  > [   ] Choice 1: Ask the DAMs to postpone the changes until vote or consensus.
>>  > [   ] Choice 2: Invite the DAM to further discuss until vote or consensus, leading to a new proposal.
>>  > [   ] Choice 3: Ask the DAMs to implement the changes.
>>  > [   ] Choice 4: Further discussion
>>  > - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
>> I confess that the mapping between the ballot options and what's
>>  published on the above URL is not crystal clear. I presume the order
>>  does matter and that hence we have:
>>  - Choice 1 -> main resolution
>>  - Choice 2 -> amendment A
>>  - Choice 3 -> amendment B
>>  Can please the secretary or an assistant confirm that this is the case?
> It doesn't look like that.  As far as my reading goes, it's:
> Choice 1 -> Amendment A
> Choice 2 -> Main Resolution
> Choice 3 -> Amendment B
> This is very unfortunate, because it's not at all clear. Too
> confusing, unless you've followed each and every mail regarding this
> vote.
> Neil, please, do include the options' titles in the webpage, so that
> it's really clear which is which.

	As I understand it, it goes like this:

Choice 1 -> Main Proposal (Charles Plessy) + Lucas Nussbaum's Amendment A
Choice 2 -> Peter Palfrader's Amendment
Choice 3 -> Lucas Nussbaum's Amendment B

	Peter started proposing an amendment to Charles proposal,
but it become an alternative because they agreed on have both
options, and Lucas added the directly opposite option so people
instead of vote "Further Discussion" can explicitly vote: "Go
ahead and do it".

	One way or the other, and if I'm not totally wrong, the
main proposal was "amended", the final result of texts and short
lines should reflect the consensus on changing a proposal or
adding an alternative.

	It seems that the "mapping" between the proposal and
amendments is not direct, it requires combining the proposal
and the amendments. :)

	Hope this helps.

Kind regards
- --
Felipe Augusto van de Wiel (faw)
"Debian. Freedom to code. Code to freedom!"
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org


Reply to: