Matthew Johnson wrote: > On Sat May 02 00:52, Luk Claes wrote: >> It would be a clear indication that the foundation document should get an >> update or that the postition statement should get dropped again. > > I think Manoj's point is that if voting some option X (a position > statement in conflict with an FD) means that we have to vote to change > the FD or drop X, then why wasn't X a vote to change the FD in the first > place? Surely we don't need a vote just to then have another vote...
Well, I think it's wrong to force the vote to be about changing the FD when the proposer and the seconders agreed that it should not. Note that you don't know if there would be another vote needed as one cannot know beforehand if the vote would pass or not. Note also that it might be easier to get a position statement than to find appropriate wording and support to change the FD. Cheers Luk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
