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

Re: GR: Change the resolution process (corrected)

>>>>> "Wouter" == Wouter Verhelst <w@uter.be> writes:

    Wouter> Hi Kurt,
    Wouter> On Thu, Dec 02, 2021 at 06:45:24PM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
    Wouter> It was always my intent that the discussion time can be kept
    Wouter> alive as long as it has not yet expired, but that it cannot
    Wouter> be revived once it has expired. But I now think it does not
    Wouter> forbid someone from sponsoring an extension proposal when
    Wouter> the discussion time has already expired.

    Wouter> So I think I should add the following to my A.3:

    Wouter> 6. Once the discussion time expires, any pending time
    Wouter> extension proposals that have not yet received their
    Wouter> required number of sponsors are null and void, and no
    Wouter> further time extensions may be proposed.

    Wouter> Or is that superfluous?

Please say one way or the other so we don't fight about it later:-)
Thanks for noticing this.

So, out of morbid curiosity about the current formal process.  If you
propose this change, can Russ accept it for you, or could he only do
that if he accepts your entire proposal as an amendment?

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: