Manoj Srivastava wrote: > Either it is preambulatory material, or it is part of the > resolution
If it is preambulatory material, then it is part of the resolution. *There* lies the crux of the disagreement. (If it is not part of the resolution, it might be *supplementary* material, or *explanatory* material, or *reference* material, or *advocacy* material, or whatever.) > -- their lies the crux of the disagreement. I have no > objection to including the full text of a resolution. I am not going > to add other material not part of the resolution to the web page. > This is not subject to debate any more. (However, this might just be > a matter of semantics, lost now under accusations of gross and > egregious abuse of power). Yep, it's just semantics. You're using the wrong definition of preamble: a nonstandard one which nobody else uses. <snip> >> That is the state that <http://www.debian.org/vote/2006/vote_004> >> was in last time I looked at it; anything not preceded by a number >> had been elided, and each ballot option was prefaced by the >> prejudicial statement that "[t]he actual text of the resolution is >> as follows. Please note that this does not include preambles to the >> resolutions, [...]", implying that preambles are not part of the >> resolution and are not votable. > > I am going to reinstate that paragraph, for it is certainly > true. Actually, it's certainly false, as Branden Robinson has explained with Supreme Court citations. -- Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Bush admitted to violating FISA and said he was proud of it. So why isn't he in prison yet?... -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
