On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 18:39:01 -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> Seems like I'm damned if I do, and damned if I don't. > It seems to me as if what happened was: > You thought the "preamble" was rationale and not part of the > resolution proper; but the proposer said "no, that was an important > part of the resolution proper." The preamble, in my eyes, is still not part of the resolution. It is a preamble to the resolution, and won't be on vote.d.o. It is, however, possible that a rteolution may have an introductory section, which is part of the resolution. > What's wrong with the proposer's word winning there? You just > modify the draft ballot and say "thanks for making it clear", and > you can, if you wish and are concerned that shenanigans are afoot, > ask the seconders whether they wish to keep their second in force. The draft ballot is not an issue. What is an issue is that a sloppy proposal mail may have mislead the sponsors to believe that a preamble was an introductory section, or vice versa. Hard to know unless the proposors and ponsors are clear about their intent. manoj -- Editing is a rewording activity. Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/> 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C