On 24/03/09 at 16:10 -0700, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I am hereby proposing the amendment below to the general resolution
> entitled "Enhance requirements for General resolutions".
>
> PROPOSAL START
> =====================================================================
> General Resolutions are an important framework within the Debian
> Project. While over those years, some problems have arised during the
> discussion and/or voting of some resolutions, there is no evidence that
> changing the number of sponsors (seconds) for GR proposals or amendments
> will help solve those problems. Instead, by making it harder to propose
> general resolutions or amendments, it might make it harder to improve
> imperfect resolutions, or to add valuable options to a ballot.
>
> Therefore the Debian project reaffirms the current requirements for the
> sponsoring (seconding) of GR proposals or amendments, and for overruling
> of delegates.
> =====================================================================
> PROPOSAL END
Since nobody sponsored it yet, I'm amending it to fix:
s/arised/arisen/
s/those years/the years/
PROPOSAL START
=====================================================================
General Resolutions are an important framework within the Debian
Project. While over the years, some problems have arisen during the
discussion and/or voting of some resolutions, there is no evidence that
changing the number of sponsors (seconds) for GR proposals or amendments
will help solve those problems. Instead, by making it harder to propose
general resolutions or amendments, it might make it harder to improve
imperfect resolutions, or to add valuable options to a ballot.
Therefore the Debian project reaffirms the current requirements for the
sponsoring (seconding) of GR proposals or amendments, and for overruling
of delegates.
=====================================================================
PROPOSAL END
Maybe we should make it mandatory to ask for review from a native
speaker before submitting a GR or an amendment? :-)
> This is an attempt to provide a rather neutral "keep things as is"
> option. I believe that we need to provide basic information about why we
> are voting this, hence the first paragraph, which, I hope, is vague
> enough ("might", etc) not to prevent anyone from sponsoring or voting
> for this option.
>
> I hope that Bill Allombert will rescind his own amendment. If he chooses
> to keep it, I might rescind this one instead (we don't need two "keep
> things as is" options on the ballot).
>
> Also, it would be great if the title of the GR was "enhanced" with
> s/Enhance/Change/.
--
| Lucas Nussbaum
| lucas@lucas-nussbaum.net http://www.lucas-nussbaum.net/ |
| jabber: lucas@nussbaum.fr GPG: 1024D/023B3F4F |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature