Le Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 08:13:52PM +0200, Holger Levsen a écrit : > > On Dienstag, 21. Oktober 2014, Sam Hartman wrote: > > my response is "so what? People are doing their jobs, let's not get in > > their way." > > I'd rather this amendment not push people away simply because they > > disagree over whether all the questions have been answered. > > I agree. I've also been thinking whether I find the distinction pointed out > by > Lucas to be so important as to offer another amendment if Charly doesnt want > to change his... I'd definitly prefer to have this statement once on the > ballot than twice. So, Charles?
Indeed, you are right: by definition, not all questions have been answered. The existing wording of the amendement is therefore logically inconsistent. I propose the following replacement as per article A.1.5 of our Contitution. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ The Debian project asks its members to be considerate when proposing General Resolutions, as the GR process may be disruptive regardless of the outcome of the vote. Regarding the subject of this ballot, the Project affirms that the procedures for decision making and conflict resolution are working adequately and thus a General Resolution is not required. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ I avoided terms like “premature” and “at this time”, since they leave a bit of an impression that a GR will definitely be needed, but only later. This is one of the main resons for my initial reluctance to accept Antony's and Lucas' comments. If further changes are needed, please suggest a full replacement: I am reaching the limits of my writing skills in English (an again: a GR that requires near-native fluency in English because the consequence of the vote will strongly depend on how the text is interpreted is anti-democratic in Debian). Have a nice day, -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
