[Stripping out the cross posting since it's annoying] On Fri, 27 Oct 2006, Sven Luther wrote: > On Thu, Oct 26, 2006 at 06:10:46PM -0500, Debian Project Secretary wrote: > > | 4. If the decision is put on hold, an immediate vote is held to > > | determine whether the decision will stand until the full vote > > | on the decision is made or whether the implementation of the > > | original decision will be delayed until then. There is no > > | quorum for this immediate procedural vote. > > You are overpassing your rights as secretary, it is not for you as > secretary to call for a vote, or take any such actions, but it is > only the proposer and the seconders who can do such.
What part of "immediate vote" isn't clear? All this does is determine whether the decision of the DPL is put on hold or stands for the course of the discussion/resolution period. Even if Manoj were to delegate the running of this vote to another developer,[1] that developer would have to conduct an immediate vote as well. Don Armstrong 1: I don't see an issue with suggesting this just to avoid any possibility of this kind of accusation, but it's not like running the vote has any special power in this regards; everything is pretty well spelled out by the constitution. [This is why jurists recuse themselves, of course... not that they aren't capable of being even handed, but just to preserve the appearance of the same.] -- I don't care how poor and inefficient a little country is; they like to run their own business. I know men that would make my wife a better husband than I am; but, darn it, I'm not going to give her to 'em. -- The Best of Will Rogers http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
