On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 10:34:42AM -0500, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> 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
I do not call for vote, that's up someone that either has an
accepted proposal, or sponsored it.
> 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.
This is my current interpration of A.2.4:
You only had your 5th second yesterday, and that is when the
discussion period started. This is in combination with
4.2.1 that it's only introduced if it has enough sponsors.
The minimum discussion period is 2 weeks.