On Fri, Oct 27, 2006 at 09:16:05AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote: > > Not really, but i read the way resolution votes where handled (Annex A.), > which says : > > 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. > > It may indeed have missed the point about reverting decisions : > > 4.2.4 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. > > But nowhere in section 4.2 does it speak about who issues the call for vote, > while A.4.2 isvery clear about this.
It does not matter, since in this special situation the vote is supposed to be 'immediate'. > In any case, independent of the actual text, there is evident conflict of > interest, both here as ian jackson pointed ou, and in the non-free vote, and > we need to engage in some reflection as to not see this happen again. Do you > have anything constructive to say about this ? This is completely irrelevant for the question about whether the current vote is being called in violation of constitution. -- Jurij Smakov [EMAIL PROTECTED] Key: http://www.wooyd.org/pgpkey/ KeyID: C99E03CC -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
