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

Re: [Amendment] Reaffirm current requirements for GR sponsoring

On Thu, Apr 09, 2009 at 04:09:43PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 09:01:38AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 04:10:49PM -0700, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> > > General Resolutions are an important framework within the Debian
> > > Project. [...]
> > I realise there are already sufficient seconds to make this a valid
> > option on the ballot, but it seems reasonable to see what it actually
> > takes to get to the 15 or 30 or so seconds being proposed before voting.
> > (From the vote.d.o page I gather there's currently 8 seconds for the
> > proposal to require 2Q seconds, and 5 for Q seconds)
> So according to the vote.d.o page, the minimum discussion period's done
> and a vote could be called for anytime... But there seems to only be 9
> seconds for the proposals to require Q/2Q seconds, which is presumably
> 6 or 21 less than would indicate they're actually feasible...

I think they would actually be 6 / 22 short.  Q being 15.91 makes 2Q
31.82.  So floor(Q) is 15, floor(2Q) is 31.

Don suggested wording to change it to 2*floor(Q), but I think 
nobody commented on that.

I'm not sure if someone who seconded one of the first two options
would like to call for vote because they didn't reach number of
seconds they would like to see.  I can only suggest them to try
and get more seconds.  And I see no reason why someone who
seconded the 3rd option would need to call for vote.

Anyway, there is also this section in the constitution:

  A.5. Expiry

   If a proposed resolution has not been discussed, amended, voted on or
   otherwise dealt with for 4 weeks the secretary may issue a statement
   that the issue is being withdrawn. If none of the sponsors of any of
   the proposals object within a week, the issue is withdrawn.

I'm just not sure when that 4 weeks start.  The discussion period
is now over, so I could do it 4 weeks from now.  I could also
interprete it to start from the last discussion on the list which
seems to be March 27.


Reply to: