Re: Naming of non-uploading DDs (Was: GR: welcome non-packaging contributors as Debian project members)
- To: debian-vote@lists.debian.org
- Subject: Re: Naming of non-uploading DDs (Was: GR: welcome non-packaging contributors as Debian project members)
- From: Don Armstrong <don@debian.org>
- Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2010 10:10:06 -0700
- Message-id: <[🔎] 20100916171006.GN28839@teltox.donarmstrong.com>
- Mail-followup-to: debian-vote@lists.debian.org
- In-reply-to: <20100916070850.GA1585@upsilon.cc>
- References: <20100914085346.GA9209@upsilon.cc> <20100915030857.GA1280@upsilon.cc> <20100915072659.GA11462@xanadu.blop.info> <20100915120032.GA27639@upsilon.cc> <20100915194009.GA14338@roeckx.be> <20100916070850.GA1585@upsilon.cc>
On Thu, 16 Sep 2010, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> Kurt, my inclination was to consider this change as falling under
> Constitution §A.1.3 as a change that "does not alter the meaning" of
> the proposal.
Since you don't actually need seconders under §4.2.1, and you are the
proposer of the original option, I don't think it's necessary (unless
a seconder wants to propose the original proposal as a second
amendment.) And in any case, any change is allowed by the original
proposer of a particular amendment; it just resets the discussion
period unless it meets A.1.6. [Though one of these days, we probably
should fix up A.1; it's language doesn't properly promote amendments
to resolutions (options?) to be voted on.]
Don Armstrong
--
The sheer ponderousness of the panel's opinion [...] refutes its
thesis far more convincingly than anything I might say. The panel's
labored effort to smother the Second Amendment by sheer body weight
has all the grace of a sumo wrestler trying to kill a rattlesnake by
sitting on it---and is just as likely to succeed.
-- Alex Kozinski, Dissenting in Silveira v. Lockyer
(CV-00-00411-WBS p5983-4)
http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu
Reply to: