Le vendredi 02 avril 2021 à 19:26:06+0200, Kurt Roeckx a écrit : > On Fri, Apr 02, 2021 at 07:15:32PM +0200, Pierre-Elliott Bécue wrote: > > Le vendredi 02 avril 2021 à 08:56:33+0200, Kurt Roeckx a écrit : > > > On Thu, Apr 01, 2021 at 09:11:29PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > > > > Phil Morrell <deb...@emorrp1.name> writes: > > > > > > > > > Do the additional proposals made in that week mean the discussion > > > > > period > > > > > has automatically been extended? Is the Secretary simply being > > > > > pragmatic > > > > > here, executing discretion before announcing the start of the voting > > > > > period? Or perhaps the DPL has likely requested another alteration? > > > > > > > > Debian constitution A.2: > > > > > > > > 1. The proposer or a sponsor of a motion or an amendment may call for a > > > > vote, providing that the minimum discussion period (if any) has > > > > elapsed. > > > > > > > > 2. The proposer or any sponsor of a resolution may call for a vote on > > > > that > > > > resolution and all related amendments. > > > > > > > > The vote does not automatically commence after the end of the discussion > > > > period. Someone who is a proposer or sponsor has to explicitly call for > > > > it. > > > > > > There is also this in 4.2: > > > 4. The minimum discussion period is 2 weeks, but may be varied by up > > > to 1 week by the Project Leader. The Project Leader has a casting > > > vote. There is a quorum of 3Q. > > > > > > The DPL changed the minimum time for the discussion period to 1 week. > > > The discussion period is over when a vote is called. > > > > Not to wreck havoc, but there also is in A.2: > > > > 4. The minimum discussion period is counted from the time the last formal > > amendment was accepted, or since the whole resolution was proposed if no > > amendments have been proposed and accepted. > > > > So I guess since you acccepted the last amendment on March the 31st,, > > we're up to the 7th April before the vote may be called for. > > > > Am I wrong? > > This is part where the constitution is really hard to parse, and > it's something I've struggled with for a long time. The terms are > used in conflicting ways. I hope someone will take the time to fix > this. > > In A.1. there is: > 2. A formal amendment may be accepted by the resolution's proposer, in > which case the formal resolution draft is immediately changed to > match. > 3. If a formal amendment is not accepted, or one of the sponsors of > the resolution does not agree with the acceptance by the proposer > of a formal amendment, the amendment remains as an amendment and > will be voted on. > > It's my current interpretation that no formal amendment was > accepted.
Ah I see! Thanks for this. I think your interpretation is the most relevant one for now but indeed there is some place here for improvements. I intend to propose a Constitution change taking into account the secret vote question and that. But I won't propose anything until: 1. The DPL election is over 2. The current Resolution about RMS is over. Cheers. -- Pierre-Elliott Bécue GPG: 9AE0 4D98 6400 E3B6 7528 F493 0D44 2664 1949 74E2 It's far easier to fight for one's principles than to live up to them.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature