On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 02:20:11PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 12:12:33AM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote: > > * Wouter Verhelst (wouter@debian.org) [140308 02:21]: > > > So rather than accepting this amendment, I propose that we modify > > > paragraph 3 read as follows, instead: > > > > > > ------- > > > 3. Updates to this code of conduct should follow the normal GR > > > procedure. However, the DPL or the DPL's delegates can add or > > > remove links to other documents in the "Further reading" section > > > after consultation with the project and without requiring a GR. > > > ------- > > > > > > The idea here is that a DPL can add a link to something considered > > > useful, while "normal" DD's can still add such a link through a GR if > > > the DPL is opposed. > > > > > > How's that sound? > > > > Just a minor point, I think we should put the "or the DPL's delegates" > > in () because according to the constitution the DPL could delegate > > these powers anyways (and so this part is just repeating what our > > constitution says, and not something special for this decision here). > > Yes, that sounds slightly better. > > So, basically, we have now: > - My original proposal, which has received enough seconds, > - Neil's amendment A, which adds the current mailinglist CoC to the > "further reading" section. I have accepted that amendment in > <20140308012109.GA773@grep.be>, and no sponsors have objected, so > under A.1.5 of the constitution my original proposal is replaced by > Neil's amendment A. > - Neil's amendment B, which I have not accepted (and which I will not > accept either) and which has received enough seconds. However, I have > suggested some minor adjustments, and Neil seems to have accepted them > (though not formally so). Formally accepted :) > If Neil were to formally accept my amendment to his amendment to my GR > proposal (or possibly, Andreas' amendment to my amendment to Neil's > amendment to my GR proposal -- still with me? ;-), that would end us up > with two options on the ballot rather than three (not counting FD), > which I think would be a plus. > Sounds good to me. Neil --
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature