On Thu, 16 Sep 2010, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> Kurt, my inclination was to consider this change as falling under
> Constitution §A.1.3 as a change that "does not alter the meaning" of
> the proposal.
Since you don't actually need seconders under §4.2.1, and you are the
proposer of the original option, I don't think it's necessary (unless
a seconder wants to propose the original proposal as a second
amendment.) And in any case, any change is allowed by the original
proposer of a particular amendment; it just resets the discussion
period unless it meets A.1.6. [Though one of these days, we probably
should fix up A.1; it's language doesn't properly promote amendments
to resolutions (options?) to be voted on.]
Don Armstrong
--
The sheer ponderousness of the panel's opinion [...] refutes its
thesis far more convincingly than anything I might say. The panel's
labored effort to smother the Second Amendment by sheer body weight
has all the grace of a sumo wrestler trying to kill a rattlesnake by
sitting on it---and is just as likely to succeed.
-- Alex Kozinski, Dissenting in Silveira v. Lockyer
(CV-00-00411-WBS p5983-4)
http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100916171006.gn28...@teltox.donarmstrong.com
