On Wed, Sep 20, 2006 at 07:44:20PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > > No one has asked that the vote.d.o pages include "background > > material". I have asked that the text of resolutions not be > > misleadingly edited
> Miisleadingly edited? Wittingly or unwittingly? Are you > claiming that the intent was to mislead? Since I have no way of knowing what your intent is, I assume as always that you are acting in good faith. Nevertheless, based on statements from the proposer of one of these resolutions (Don), I believe it is your intent to represent the text of this resolution to be something other than what the proposer has intended to propose, thus misleading the electorate as to what they have been asked to vote on as a result of what I think is an error of judgement. I don't object to you exercising judgement in subsetting the signed text in an effort to discern the boundaries of a resolution's text, even though I find your preference for excluding preambulatory text outlandish and at odds with the practices of every legislative body with which I am familiar. But if you are going to subset the signed text, I *do* object to your apparent unwillingness to receive clarification from proposers who tell you that you've sliced at the wrong place. Your new guidelines address my concerns by removing the ambiguity, so I'm ok with that as solution. Guess I need to become minimally fluent in wml now, though. > > to exclude preambulatory material which has been properly proposed > > and seconded as part of that resolution. > Either it is preambulatory material, or it is part of the > resolution -- their lies the crux of the disagreement. Yes, I wholeheartedly disagree with the preceding statement. :) -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
