On 9 Feb 2006, Anthony Towns told this: > On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 04:03:48PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote: >> I am away from home, so I can't sign this email. However, we can >> not hold a vote until the minimal discussion period is over, which >> makes it Feb 23,rd at the earliest, so I'll probably do it Feb >> 25th. > > I'm pretty sure that's incorrect, as per my mail:
You are entitled to an opinion, of course. >>> The original proposal became formal with Roger Leigh's second, on >>> the 12th of January, and as no further amendments were accepted, a >>> call for a vote is appropriate any time two weeks after that (from >>> the 26th of January), as per A.2(1) and A.2(4). > 4.2(4): the minimum discussion period is 2 weeks (and hasn't been > varied) A.2(4): the minimum discussion period is counted from the > time > (a) the last formal amendment was accepted Adeodato's new proposal was formally accepted yesterday. I think your error is in interpretng the accepted to imply the original GR propoer accepting the amendment, I see it as an amendment being accepted as an alternate on the ballot. If there is an option on the ballot, there should be adequate time to discuss it. Indeed, a new option on the ballot may present novel idea, and having a vote without discussion of the new option seems ... odd. > (b) the whole resolution was proposed if no amendments have been > proposed and accepted > > A.1(1): "amendments may be made formal by being proposed and > sponsored", so there were three formal amendments, Adeodato's first, > Anton's, and Adeodato's second. A.1(2): "A formal amendment may be > accepted by the resolution's proposer", which didn't happen for any > of these, so there were no formal amendments that have been proposed > and accepted, so (b) holds > > The whole resolution was proposed on 11th Jan 2006 21:53:43 +1000, > and received sufficient sponsors at 12th Jan 2006 09:59:20 +0000. > So the minimum discussion period ended on the 26th Jan 2006 09:59:20 > +0000, afaics. Since the initial draft of the GR was posted 1st > January, we've already been discussing this for six weeks, so I > don't think there's any need for another two weeks on this. Adeodato's new proposal has not had any discussion that I can see. I would be interested in the thoughts of people who sponsored the opriginal GR on why the original deserves to be voted above adeodato's proposal. >> Look at section A.1.6, which specifies what changes to a >> proposal do not restart the minimum discussion period. > > That allows the original resolution to be changed in some cases > without the discussion period restarting. I think distinct options on a ballot count as independent proposals for related issues. manoj -- The problem here (as someon else stated) is that when multiple dists use the same package format it only gives a "false sense of compatibility". -- Stephen Carpenter Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/> 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]