On Fri, 27 Oct 2006 02:22:32 -0700, Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Fri, 27 Oct 2006, Anthony Towns wrote:
>> I can't see anywhere in the resolution it claims to invoke 4.2.2.2,
>> so afaics that doesn't apply.
> Since the resolution itself is about putting a decision on hold, 4.2
> seems to apply; the "resolution must say so" verbiage seems to be
> there to avoid putting a decision on hold by an amended resolution
> seconded by 2K developers which affirms a decision. [Although, the
> alternative supposition is tenable, even if it differs from my
> initial reading. Clarification by the proposer would resolve this
> issue.]
Also, from the resolution itself:
] I disagree with the Policy delegation decision of our DPL [1] and
] therefore propose a resolution as defined in section 4.2.2 of the Debian
] constitution to delay the decision of the Debian Project Leader keeping
] the Package Policy Committee as defined[2] in place
So it explicitly mentions 4.2.2, which means the resolution is
about delaying decisions, not about affirming them; if the proposer
and sponsors do not think that they wanted the hold to apply, they
can now voice their opinions, and there would be no harm, no foul.
manoj
--
Let the people think they govern and they will be governed. William
Penn, founder of Pennsylvania
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
