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

[Sorry Neil] Wording modification of the The ???no GR, please??? amendement.

Le Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 08:13:52PM +0200, Holger Levsen a écrit :
> On Dienstag, 21. Oktober 2014, Sam Hartman wrote:
> > my response is "so what?  People are doing their jobs, let's not get in
> > their way."
> > I'd rather this amendment not push people away simply because they
> > disagree over whether all the questions have been answered.
> I agree. I've also been thinking whether I find the distinction pointed out by 
> Lucas to be so important as to offer another amendment if Charly doesnt want 
> to change his... I'd definitly prefer to have this statement once on the 
> ballot than twice. So, Charles?

Indeed, you are right: by definition, not all questions have been answered.
The existing wording of the amendement is therefore logically inconsistent.

I propose the following replacement as per article A.1.5 of our Contitution.


The Debian project asks its members to be considerate when proposing General
Resolutions, as the GR process may be disruptive regardless of the outcome of
the vote.

Regarding the subject of this ballot, the Project affirms that the procedures
for decision making and conflict resolution are working adequately and thus
a General Resolution is not required.


I avoided terms like “premature” and “at this time”, since they leave a bit of
an impression that a GR will definitely be needed, but only later.  This is one
of the main resons for my initial reluctance to accept Antony's and Lucas'

If further changes are needed, please suggest a full replacement: I am reaching
the limits of my writing skills in English (an again: a GR that requires
near-native fluency in English because the consequence of the vote will
strongly depend on how the text is interpreted is anti-democratic in Debian).

Have a nice day,

Charles Plessy
Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: