Re: [Sorry Neil] Wording modification of the The ???no GR, please??? amendement.
On 22/10/14 at 07:45 +0900, Charles Plessy wrote: I propose the following replacement as per article A.1.5 of our Contitution. The Debian project asks its members to be considerate when proposing General Resolutions, as the GR process may be disruptive regardless of the outcome of the vote. Regarding the subject of this ballot, the Project affirms that the procedures for decision making and conflict resolution are working adequately and thus a General Resolution is not required. Thanks Charles. I believe this is an improvement over the previous wording. Seconded. - Lucas signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [Sorry Neil] Wording modification of the The ???no GR, please??? amendement.
Charles Plessy wrote: I propose the following replacement as per article A.1.5 of our Contitution. The Debian project asks its members to be considerate when proposing General Resolutions, as the GR process may be disruptive regardless of the outcome of the vote. Regarding the subject of this ballot, the Project affirms that the procedures for decision making and conflict resolution are working adequately and thus a General Resolution is not required. I don't suppose it's necessary, but since that perfectly fits my thoughts on this subject: Seconded. Thank you for your efforts on this, and especially for this improved wording. Cheers, Phil. -- |)| Philip Hands [+44 (0)20 8530 9560] HANDS.COM Ltd. |-| http://www.hands.com/http://ftp.uk.debian.org/ |(| Hugo-Klemm-Strasse 34, 21075 Hamburg,GERMANY pgpOJJ_dQ_b1F.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [Sorry Neil] Wording modification of the The ???no GR, please??? amendement.
On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 07:45:39AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote: Indeed, you are right: by definition, not all questions have been answered. The existing wording of the amendement is therefore logically inconsistent. I propose the following replacement as per article A.1.5 of our Contitution. Received and updated. Neil -- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [Sorry Neil] Wording modification of the The ???no GR, please??? amendement. [and 1 more messages]
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 Charles Plessy writes ([Sorry Neil] Wording modification of the The ???no GR, please??? amendement.): I propose the following replacement as per article A.1.5 of our Contitution. I'm not entirely convinced this is quite regular. You are the proposer of an amendment, not of the resolution. I think under A.1(5) it would be for me to propose such changes and you to approve them. This is probably a bug in the constitution. For the avoidance of doubt, I have no objection to amendment-proposers making changes to their amendment texts. If it is necessary, I hereby give my consent. (Or, people you prefer, I preemptively declare that I should be taken to have `suggested' such changes, according to A.1(5).) I say this on the understanding that such changes do not reset the minimum discussion period. I think the minimum discussion period was reset by my amendment email at Sun, 19 Oct 2014 14:59:16 +0100 and therefore expires at Sun, 02 Nov 2014 13:59:16 +. At that time I will call for a vote. (I think my email of Sun, 19 Oct 2014 20:06:22 +0100 fixing a numbering typo falls under A.1(6).) Ian. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJUR6eCAAoJEOPjOSNItQ05YO0IAIv50XuJwKbonepJMHRZSobL ueQQVA37sZW0B0EmobpLRgXweY5VjKwje4BXaJ9dfWm1g/yh9wgMXnpJHVbv+nHK aUfGKsT+PgNXTxQS2bGAU4H6kITK0xroA+XvqKppVsNa7NMcykXPAHkm9QfGIYnU 1gIyA7d5QX3HQ0kvTJAzSqmj8PVcofKU1Chnh42kT/aR4U32kMTJBCC3KlbKZTcR 1ASP8qqanb2GT/kpIaBu0xGdrhFuEY9rJWBI9QGdx97ECFhwSCzVCpYniBZya7Yu sTbh8QE40TUe9eS9pBSDvzpB6SkTlo+QZMZi1v+CJZtkLpdI3VfOLa4KnxlLZsI= =IeUH -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/21575.42935.691737.468...@chiark.greenend.org.uk
Re: [Sorry Neil] Wording modification of the The ???no GR, please??? amendement.
Charles Plessy ple...@debian.org (2014-10-22): The Debian project asks its members to be considerate when proposing General Resolutions, as the GR process may be disruptive regardless of the outcome of the vote. Regarding the subject of this ballot, the Project affirms that the procedures for decision making and conflict resolution are working adequately and thus a General Resolution is not required. Seconded. KiBi. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [Sorry Neil] Wording modification of the The ???no GR, please??? amendement.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 07:45:39AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote: I propose the following replacement as per article A.1.5 of our Contitution. The Debian project asks its members to be considerate when proposing General Resolutions, as the GR process may be disruptive regardless of the outcome of the vote. Regarding the subject of this ballot, the Project affirms that the procedures for decision making and conflict resolution are working adequately and thus a General Resolution is not required. Seconded. Cheers, aj -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJUSA/DAAoJEGF3s1WCqNimaYEQAMA6sUbYEtQEdi6xQzG4/N2z GpaaKmBsff3b+dePYAQpcriybTztQAbPdwrX8jgbXdEkW74wfZOtBrt3yh1XSr6c JhpKSi7/XIrr1QAUIbBq05q7o6IHI84EOq0fVKEIJHzUK2/LZFAfRZLagye6Owkx 5SQoAnaXH2+DCozRa+2d0vwD11XLZ6mFccAYQqBST4ChyOpzf7SNQQQ2lAjQq5Br BTTpvFglJGgHIebmkrJ9ag6gIl5b2CAtbxL8Nm4GK7meZKBxpUX+PqPs2W4Ckl+/ 4xbAErS/x/xVWvhIFkJbpVj343dmmu9ZNCbMt0raIb5PgKDADghY0jqK+WY/RHG1 K5VIyZo3tRBfx66qfghrrv3MlBU/MJl9fnKWe7pGPQMq2Wv5R33o35qJXDcE1ERm sddybbR1gO2YBh8xUkCaTxJhjMBON8tpfzGrCunvmR2qsHIAJnQqg+TW9vC9xHA7 adwnL2wyli8VAQ1fPEbdMCM46uFWe7DyCYxZL2Mhpxd2LAj90hNH7uPsjG+P1w8y 2TerLKVzrAPWmWNxieDEX77EPw7rfk3OM9/cY9LUP56xz8axUcecNveDc0MbE8sJ 0sNR9y1REUDrs1+3YadNCnXsNLakfcgRSWJUVwj9nYL0SXvSd2kDt1W8QVwUsZ7h DaCM19+1hlRLOgnKZwqC =JjLk -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20141022201405.ga8...@master.debian.org
[Sorry Neil] Wording modification of the The ???no GR, please??? amendement.
Le Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 08:13:52PM +0200, Holger Levsen a écrit : On Dienstag, 21. Oktober 2014, Sam Hartman wrote: my response is so what? People are doing their jobs, let's not get in their way. I'd rather this amendment not push people away simply because they disagree over whether all the questions have been answered. I agree. I've also been thinking whether I find the distinction pointed out by Lucas to be so important as to offer another amendment if Charly doesnt want to change his... I'd definitly prefer to have this statement once on the ballot than twice. So, Charles? Indeed, you are right: by definition, not all questions have been answered. The existing wording of the amendement is therefore logically inconsistent. I propose the following replacement as per article A.1.5 of our Contitution. The Debian project asks its members to be considerate when proposing General Resolutions, as the GR process may be disruptive regardless of the outcome of the vote. Regarding the subject of this ballot, the Project affirms that the procedures for decision making and conflict resolution are working adequately and thus a General Resolution is not required. I avoided terms like “premature” and “at this time”, since they leave a bit of an impression that a GR will definitely be needed, but only later. This is one of the main resons for my initial reluctance to accept Antony's and Lucas' comments. If further changes are needed, please suggest a full replacement: I am reaching the limits of my writing skills in English (an again: a GR that requires near-native fluency in English because the consequence of the vote will strongly depend on how the text is interpreted is anti-democratic in Debian). Have a nice day, -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [Sorry Neil] Wording modification of the The ???no GR, please??? amendement.
Hi Charles, On Mittwoch, 22. Oktober 2014, Charles Plessy wrote: I propose the following replacement as per article A.1.5 of our Contitution. The Debian project asks its members to be considerate when proposing General Resolutions, as the GR process may be disruptive regardless of the outcome of the vote. Regarding the subject of this ballot, the Project affirms that the procedures for decision making and conflict resolution are working adequately and thus a General Resolution is not required. I avoided terms like “premature” and “at this time”, since they leave a bit of an impression that a GR will definitely be needed, but only later. This is one of the main resons for my initial reluctance to accept Antony's and Lucas' comments. I like this changed version indeed much more, thanks a lot for your work on this! Writing short texts well is almost an art ;-) (I don't think I need to formally second this, but if I do, I hereby am. Please tell me still, I have tiny doubts :) cheers, Holger signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [Sorry Neil] Wording modification of the The ???no GR, please??? amendement.
I propose the following replacement as per article A.1.5 of our Contitution. The Debian project asks its members to be considerate when proposing General Resolutions, as the GR process may be disruptive regardless of the outcome of the vote. Regarding the subject of this ballot, the Project affirms that the procedures for decision making and conflict resolution are working adequately and thus a General Resolution is not required. I'm not sure If a re-second is required. I do support this text and believe it is an improvement over the original. If it is meaningful/useful, count this message as a formal second. pgpqTifxMFVi7.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [Sorry Neil] Wording modification of the The ???no GR, please??? amendement.
Hi, Charles Plessy: I propose the following replacement as per article A.1.5 of our Contitution. The Debian project asks its members to be considerate when proposing General Resolutions, as the GR process may be disruptive regardless of the outcome of the vote. Regarding the subject of this ballot, the Project affirms that the procedures for decision making and conflict resolution are working adequately and thus a General Resolution is not required. Seconded. While I disagree with the statement that not all questions have been answered. the above re-wording is less controversial, which is a Good Thing (in this case, at least). -- -- Matthias Urlichs signature.asc Description: Digital signature
