Re: GR timing and "accepted" amendments

[Sam Hartman <hartmans@debian.org>]

>>>>> "Ian" == Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes:

    Ian> It seems to me that if improvements to G (say) become available
    Ian> and are acceptable to the proposer, they should be on the
    Ian> ballot, probably instead of the existing G.  Because of
    Ian> ambiguity in the constitution (sorry) it is not clear who can
    Ian> formally accept such an amendment, and also there is the
    Ian> problem that it might reset the discussion period.

I think Kurt and I have both been under the interpretation that
proposers of formal amendments have been withdrawing and replacing their
proposals, and that sponsorship continues to apply unless it's clear
that it does not.

I think we're all agreed that proposers of formal amendments should be
able to update things.

I was considering something similar to what you propose though to remove
the possibility of challenges if a sponsor should withdraw at the last
minute, or something.
I was effectively considering (especially if there were late changes)
becoming an additional sponsor as DPL for anything  that was discussed
and seemed to address the questions  that got us here.
So, no, I would not feel comfortable sponsoring G in its current form
for the reasons you, Russ, Bdale, Sean and I have stated.
But yeah, if the DPL becoming an additional sponsor of an amended G
would remove ambiguity as we approach CFV time,
I can see doing that.

--Sam