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

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

Hi Charles,

On Mittwoch, 22. Oktober 2014, Charles Plessy wrote:
> 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' comments.

I like this changed version indeed much more, thanks a lot for your work on 
this! Writing short texts well is almost an art ;-)

(I don't think I need to formally second this, but if I do, I hereby am. 
Please tell me still, I have tiny doubts :)


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Reply to: