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

Re: "rms-open-letter" GR choice 2: sign https://rms-support-letter.github.io/



Le vendredi 02 avril 2021 à 19:26:06+0200, Kurt Roeckx a écrit :
> On Fri, Apr 02, 2021 at 07:15:32PM +0200, Pierre-Elliott Bécue wrote:
> > Le vendredi 02 avril 2021 à 08:56:33+0200, Kurt Roeckx a écrit :
> > > On Thu, Apr 01, 2021 at 09:11:29PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > > > Phil Morrell <debian@emorrp1.name> writes:
> > > > 
> > > > > Do the additional proposals made in that week mean the discussion period
> > > > > has automatically been extended? Is the Secretary simply being pragmatic
> > > > > here, executing discretion before announcing the start of the voting
> > > > > period? Or perhaps the DPL has likely requested another alteration?
> > > > 
> > > > Debian constitution A.2:
> > > > 
> > > > 1. The proposer or a sponsor of a motion or an amendment may call for a
> > > >    vote, providing that the minimum discussion period (if any) has
> > > >    elapsed.
> > > > 
> > > > 2. The proposer or any sponsor of a resolution may call for a vote on that
> > > >    resolution and all related amendments.
> > > > 
> > > > The vote does not automatically commence after the end of the discussion
> > > > period.  Someone who is a proposer or sponsor has to explicitly call for
> > > > it.
> > > 
> > > There is also this in 4.2:
> > >     4. The minimum discussion period is 2 weeks, but may be varied by up
> > >        to 1 week by the Project Leader. The Project Leader has a casting
> > >        vote. There is a quorum of 3Q.
> > > 
> > > The DPL changed the minimum time for the discussion period to 1 week.
> > > The discussion period is over when a vote is called.
> > 
> > Not to wreck havoc, but there also is in A.2:
> > 
> > 4. The minimum discussion period is counted from the time the last formal
> > amendment was accepted, or since the whole resolution was proposed if no
> > amendments have been proposed and accepted. 
> > 
> > So I guess since you acccepted the last amendment on March the 31st,,
> > we're up to the 7th April before the vote may be called for.
> > 
> > Am I wrong?
> 
> This is part where the constitution is really hard to parse, and
> it's something I've struggled with for a long time. The terms are
> used in conflicting ways. I hope someone will take the time to fix
> this.
> 
> In A.1. there is:
>     2. A formal amendment may be accepted by the resolution's proposer, in
>        which case the formal resolution draft is immediately changed to
>        match.
>     3. If a formal amendment is not accepted, or one of the sponsors of
>        the resolution does not agree with the acceptance by the proposer
>        of a formal amendment, the amendment remains as an amendment and
>        will be voted on.
> 
> It's my current interpretation that no formal amendment was
> accepted.

Ah I see!

Thanks for this.

I think your interpretation is the most relevant one for now but indeed
there is some place here for improvements.

I intend to propose a Constitution change taking into account the secret
vote question and that.

But I won't propose anything until:

1. The DPL election is over
2. The current Resolution about RMS is over.

Cheers.

-- 
Pierre-Elliott Bécue
GPG: 9AE0 4D98 6400 E3B6 7528  F493 0D44 2664 1949 74E2
It's far easier to fight for one's principles than to live up to them.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: