On Tue, 3 Oct 2006 23:20:35 +0200, Denis Barbier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> It seems more logical to me to have a separate ballot for the recall
> vote;
Apart from the fact that these are under separate sections of
the constitution (recall §4.1, position statement §4.5) and thus
arguably independent resolutions (which, I suppose, can still be put
on the same ballot), we have these five courses of action that are
present on the proposals and amendments:
A) Recall the DPL
B) Do not recall the DPL
C) Affirm DPL and say nice things about dunc-tank (Loïc)
D) Affirm DPL and be non-commital about dunc-tank (Joss)
E) Do not affirm anything.
A and C are mutually exclusive, as are C, D, and E. Given
this, a joint ballot would have to look like:
1) A + C
2) A + D
3) A + E
4) B + C
5) B + D
6) B + E
7) FD
Now, even if A + C and A + D seem pathological,
1) A + E
2) B + C
3) B + D
4) B + E
5) FD
Which is better. But the consensus seems to be emerging that
these are separate issues, an d separate ballots look like:
[ ] Recall
[ ] Do not recall
[ ] FD
[ ] Affirm DPL + approve dunc-tank (Loïc)
[ ] Affirm DPL (Joss)
[ ] FD
> anyway we are now stalled by Josselin's proposal, AFAICT.
No, that is not so. Since your recall is an independent
resolution from the affirmation, you are not delayed. Since Loïc
did not accept Joss's amendment, he is not delayed either -- only
accepted amendments to a proposal reset discussion times. (same is
true for combining
manoj
--
"I say we take off; nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be
sure." Corporal Hicks, in "Aliens"
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
