Kurt Roeckx <k...@roeckx.be> writes: > On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 01:52:43PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote: >> On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 08:43:16AM +0000, MJ Ray wrote:
>>> AMENDMENT START >>> ======================================================================== >>> Replace "too small" with "thought to be too small, but there is a >>> lack of evidence about the correct level". >>> >>> Replace clause c with "c) if a year has passed, starting from the >>> proposal of a general resolution, without any proposal receiving the >>> required number of seconds, then this resolution expires and the >>> required number of seconds returns to K." >>> ======================================================================== >>> AMENDMENT END >> Seconded. > What exactly are you seconding? This is a proposal that modifies *3* of > the other proposals. This is one of those messy things that our current system doesn't handle all that well. I'd really sort of like this to be a separate vote on a different axis contingent on one of the changes to the seconding threshold beating FD or the FD-look-alike option, but that's not an available option in our voting system at present. If Joerg isn't willing to accept the amendment, I suppose it's three separate amendments that probably all need to be seconded independently. -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org