On Thu, 6 May 2004 00:24:12 +1000, Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Mon, May 03, 2004 at 12:21:17PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> On Mon, 3 May 2004 17:28:43 +0100, Ian Jackson
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> > Some other comments:
>>
>> > * Our Secretary seems to be under the impression that a vote must
>> > be started within a certain period of a resolution being
>> > proposed. I don't think this is the case. The discussion
>> > period quoted in 4.2(4) is a _minimum_. According to A.2(1),
>> > it is up to the proposer or a sponsor to call for a vote, and
>> > there is no need to hold a vote until they do so.
>>
>> Rubbish. In the case of the last GR, the sponsor had already called
>> for a vote (twice, in fact, I asked that the vote be delayed the
>> first time for for technical vote taking rasons, and he agreed).
> I don't see the disagreement here. Ian says the secretary need not
> hold a vote until the proposer or sponsor calls for one. Manoj says
> the proposer had indeed called for one.
The difference is whether or not our secretary has a clue as
to what the constitution says on how votes should be conducted.
manoj
--
Come, every frustum longs to be a cone, And every vector dreams of
matrices. Hark to the gentle gradient of the breeze: It whispers of a
more ergodic zone. Stanislaw Lem, "Cyberiad"
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
