Re: Proposal: General Resolution on Init Systems and systemd Facilities
Sam Hartman <hartmans@debian.org> writes:
> To clarify, my understanding is that the discussion period started
> November 16.
> So, we're talking about a minimum discussion period expiring on
> November 30.
Your acceptance of my amendment reset the clock, at least by my reading of
the constitution. That happened on the 19th of November, so the two week
discussion period will now expire on the 3rd of December.
(This is actually a little bit murky since I didn't call for seconds and
you accepted the amendment directly. Procedurally, it looks like I
probably should have called for seconds to be in less ambiguous territory,
so we may need a secretarial ruling here.)
> I assumed the secretary would interpret the constitution differently and
> that only the proposer of the original resolution could accept
> amendments.
> I seem to recall Manoj interpreted things that way back in the day.
> So, at the time I wrote that text, I was under the mistaken belief that
> I was the only one who could accept amendments. (I'm glad the secretary
> has interpreted things differently.)
I believe this is a correct reading of the constitution. A.2.4 is
explicit that the minimum discussion period is from the last accepted
amendment, and A.1.3 is clear that amendments that have sufficient seconds
but are not agreed to by the proposer are not considered accepted
amendments.
(I also think this is a bug in the constitution; it means that a rejected
but seconded amendment can go on the ballot immediately before the vote
with no time for further discussion of that amendment, which seems
obviously poor. But that being said, fixing the constitution, if
appropriate, is a separate discussion.)
--
Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org) <https://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Reply to: