Ian Jackson dijo [Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 04:23:31PM +0100]: > > > Do I need to re-make my proposal as an amendment to Gunnar's or are > > > you happy to treat it as such ? > > > > FWIW I think we will be better off if we have it as a distinct option > > (as it is semantically quite different). > > Sorry, yes, that's what I mean. But formally there is one GR with a > number of different options, each of which is a technically an > amendment. (The process has this so that there is a defined person > who decides when to call a vote - in this case, you.) > > But right now if my proposal gets enough seconds, technically there > might be two separate GRs, which would be silly.
Oh? I have skipped the administrative part of this all; I expected the Secretary to call for a vote when a proposal had enough seconds, and add options to it as the thematically-grouped ones reached enough seconds. Following the Constitution's text: We have reached 4.2.1, according to 4.2.7, for my original text; right now, the only other proposal formally on the table (Ian Jackson's) has not yet reched K. Anyway, I do clearly see value in having your proposal as part of the ballot (as well as Iain's, if he pushes it on and makes it a formal proposal. I will call for a vote... Say, by Friday. Meanwhile, we have some time to get more sponsors for this option. Now, how should I "mark" your proposal as a formal option for sharing the ballot with mine? FWIW, I'm signing this mail, so that the Secretary clearly reads my intention :)
Description: Digital signature