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

Re: Proposal: General Resolution on Init Systems and systemd Facilities

On Wed, Nov 20, 2019 at 08:54:55AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> 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.

I did not actually see him accepting that yet, just an intention
to do so.

> (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 don't see a reason for seconding something before you can
propose changes to it.

> > 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.)

That whole part could really use some fixing. The more you read
it, the more you think it says something else.


Reply to: