Wouter Verhelst <wou...@debian.org> writes: > On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 01:04:21PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> * A formal amendment has to be sponsored like a new GR before it can be >> accepted, but the original proposer of a GR can make their own amendment >> without having it be sponsored. These two rules make no sense in >> combination (which is probably why the first rule is rarely, perhaps >> never, enforced). > I'm not entirely sure what you mean by that. Can you clarify? Take a look at A.1.1 and A.1.2 and ask what the process is if someone other than the original proposer notices a logical flaw (i.e., not a minor error) and wants to ask the proposer to fix it and everyone agrees that it should be fixed. In practice, the expedient thing for the proposer to do is to repropose the same amendment themselves, which bypasses the sponsorship requirement, and then immediately accept it, and then allow the original amendment to be discarded due to lack of sponsors. This is silly, which is presumably why the Project Secretary doesn't require people do this even though technically it's required. The sponsorship requirement only makes sense because of the confusion between amendments and ballot options; the sponsorship is there for the A.1.3 case. I've done some test reworkings of this section separating ballot options from amendments, and everything becomes more straightforward and clear (and has other advantages in role clarification). -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <https://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
