On 11/11/2014 02:10 PM, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Santiago Vila writes ("Re: REISSUED CfV: General Resolution: Init system
> coupling"):
>> The voting process is already complex enough. If it is going to be like this:
>>
>> GR Proposal: Option A.
>> Amendment A: Option B.
>> Amendment B: Option C.
>>
>> we might better stick with numbered options.
>
> *rotfl*. I'm hoping the Secretary could avoid that and that we could
> instead have
>
> GR Proposal: Option A.
> Amendment B: Option B.
> Amendment C: Option C.
Or even simpler
Proposal A: Option A
Proposal B: Option B
Proposal C: Option C
I'm not sure why there is a need to treat the initial proposal and later
ones in a different way.
As a related question, I also don't understand why the proposer of the
initial proposal and of later amendments are treated differently in the
constitution, e.g. in A.1.5. Ian suggested this might just be a bug[1]?
(I'm also wondering if there is a difference between "original proposer"
as used in A.1.4 and "proposer of a resolution" in A.1.5.)
Ansgar
[1] <https://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2014/10/msg00309.html>
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/546216fb.1090...@debian.org
