Re: Proposal to overturn init systems premature GR
Kurt Roeckx writes ("Re: Proposal to overturn init systems premature GR"):
> On Tue, Dec 03, 2019 at 04:15:02PM +0000, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > I hereby propose the following General Resolution:
> >
> > Title: A few extra days for init systems GR text drafting
> >
> > 1. We exercise the DPL's power to set the minimum discussion
> > period for the init systems GR to end at 23:59 UTC on
> > Friday the 6th of December. (Constitution 4.1(3).)
>
> It would have been better that you did this before he called for
> vote. There was clearly enough time to do this, and he's been
> clear that he would do the CFV today.
I had not appreciated that. It may have been buried in one of the
mails.
> > 5. All of the decisions in (2), (3) and (4) above, where applicable,
> > are immediately put on hold (Constitution 4.2(2)(2) or 4.2(2)(3),
> > as applicable.)
> >
> > 6. This entire GR proposal is withdrawn if the DPL:
> > (i) withdraws the Call for Votes;
> > (ii) adjusts the minimum discussion period according
> > to our (1), above; and
> > (ii) commits to not reducing it again and/or calling
> > for a vote without giving 24 hours' notice.
> >
> > I think this is effective if I get 5 or 10 seconders, depending on the
> > Secretary's interpretation of the Constitution.
>
> 5) asks the DPL's decision to be put on hold, so that part would
> require 2K. But I think it's too late for that.
Are you saying my proposal is ineffective even if I get 2K
seconds ?
I would like to point out that I asked you for advice about this on
the 20th of November. Specifically, I asked
Supposing Sam calls for a vote, can I stop him ?
and then wrote
I think maybe I can do this:
and then gave a summary of roughly what my (4) and (5) do.
You didn't reply.
Ian.
--
Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> These opinions are my own.
If I emailed you from an address @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk, that is
a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.
Reply to: