Raul Miller wrote: > On 9/21/06, Nick Phillips <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> On which subject, does anyone else think that it would be useful to >> leave debian-vote for formal proposals/seconds (possibly moderated), and >> another list e.g. debian-vote-discuss (or even just -project) for the >> flame^Wdiscussions that follow? >> >> It would make it a lot easier to tell what was an actual proposal and >> what was not, what had been seconded and what had not (each proposal >> gets its own thread, to which the only responses are seconds). > > Except, that's solving the problem which did not occur. > > The question I see Manoj posing is not "was this message intended > to present a proposal, or not". > > The question I see Manoj posing is "which part of this proposal > message is the actual proposal". > > Personally, I'd say that if the situation is so ambiguous that it's not > clear whether what people are seconding is the same as what the > proposer has proposed that we are not dealing with a valid resolution. > > Consider a general case: Proposal message contains statements > A > B > C > D > E > > Some sequential fragment of this message is the proposal. That > means that the proposal might be A, AB, ABC, ABCD, ABCDE, > B, BC, BCD, BCDE, C, CD, CDE, D, DE, E. This might dilute > seconds by a factor as high as 15. > > In cases where the secretary feels the burden of interpretation is > too high, I think the secretary should ask that the proposal and > seconds be re-issued, with the ambiguities resolved.
Totally reasonable. > In cases where the secretary's request is refused, I think the > secretary would be completely justified as treating each possible > resolution as a separate proposal. Though, to be fair, the > secretary might wish to present each plausibly seconded > possibility as having been seconded, even where this means > that a single "seconded" message seconds more than one > potential resolution. > > And if someone is tempted to claim "abuse of power" here, I think that > it's pretty obvious that the abuse would be on the part of those who > refuse to participate in resolving the ambiguities they themselves > presented. > -- Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Bush admitted to violating FISA and said he was proud of it. So why isn't he in prison yet?... -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
