Re: [BALLOT] Social Contract Change Amendment

Call me old fashioned, but I prefer to have the entire text of the ballot item in the ballot. I don't like having a ballot initiative which says yes or no but doesn't directly list the item for which we are voting. I download my email to my laptop and read the email at my convenience. I am not a

Re: [BALLOT] Social Contract Change Amendment

Call me old fashioned, but I prefer to have the entire text of the ballot item in the ballot. I don't like having a ballot initiative which says yes or no but doesn't directly list the item for which we are voting. I download my email to my laptop and read the email at my convenience. I am not

Re: [BALLOT] Social Contract Change Amendment

Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Mon, Oct 09, 2000 at 10:54:26PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: > > Eek, no. If Towns wanted a separate GR, he would have proposed one. > > Instead, he proposed an *amendment*, which, if it succeeds, amends the > > proposal, but does not thereb

Re: [BALLOT] Social Contract Change Amendment

Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Mon, Oct 09, 2000 at 10:54:26PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: > > Eek, no. If Towns wanted a separate GR, he would have proposed one. > > Instead, he proposed an *amendment*, which, if it succeeds, amends the > > proposal, but does not there

Re: [BALLOT] Social Contract Change Amendment

On Tue, Oct 10, 2000 at 08:05:46PM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote: > That is what this ballot is. Does anyone think otherwise? Actually it's a vote in accordance with A.3.1. I may not have been completely clear on that in my earlier mail. > > properly seconded (I have seen no reference to a message

Re: [BALLOT] Social Contract Change Amendment

We have a list for voting discussion, and it's not -devel. On Tue, Oct 10, 2000 at 01:51:53AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > On Mon, Oct 09, 2000 at 10:54:26PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: > > Eek, no. If Towns wanted a separate GR, he would have proposed one. ^ For f

Re: [BALLOT] Social Contract Change Amendment

We have a list for voting discussion, and it's not -devel. On Tue, Oct 10, 2000 at 01:51:53AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > On Mon, Oct 09, 2000 at 10:54:26PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: > > Eek, no. If Towns wanted a separate GR, he would have proposed one. ^ For

Re: [BALLOT] Social Contract Change Amendment

You are absolutly correct and did a better job explaining it (on both accounts). Thank you! On Mon, Oct 09, 2000 at 10:51:05PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: > Bernd Eckenfels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > On Mon, Oct 09, 2000 at 08:06:36PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: > > > You

Re: [BALLOT] Social Contract Change Amendment

You are absolutly correct and did a better job explaining it (on both accounts). Thank you! On Mon, Oct 09, 2000 at 10:51:05PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: > Bernd Eckenfels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > On Mon, Oct 09, 2000 at 08:06:36PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: > > > You

Re: [BALLOT] Social Contract Change Amendment

On Tue, Oct 10, 2000 at 02:45:17PM +0200, Sven LUTHER wrote: > On Mon, Oct 09, 2000 at 07:49:19PM -0500, Debian Project Secretary wrote: > > These instructions are a little clearer > > This is not any clearer as the first, you have to do a lot of thinking before > finding out what may be meant

Re: [BALLOT] Social Contract Change Amendment

On Mon, Oct 09, 2000 at 07:49:19PM -0500, Debian Project Secretary wrote: > These instructions are a little clearer This is not any clearer as the first, you have to do a lot of thinking before finding out what may be meant, and the fact that there are two ballots only confuse that. I think t

Re: [BALLOT] Social Contract Change Amendment

On Mon, Oct 09, 2000 at 07:49:19PM -0500, Debian Project Secretary wrote: > These instructions are a little clearer This is not any clearer as the first, you have to do a lot of thinking before finding out what may be meant, and the fact that there are two ballots only confuse that. I think

Re: [BALLOT] Social Contract Change Amendment

On Tue, Oct 10, 2000 at 12:46:15AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > A.1.3. If a formal amendment is not accepted, or one of the sponsors of the > resolution does not agree with the acceptance by the proposer of a formal > amendment, the amendment remains as an amendment and will be voted on. > > I

Re: [BALLOT] Social Contract Change Amendment

On Tue, Oct 10, 2000 at 12:46:15AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > A.1.3. If a formal amendment is not accepted, or one of the sponsors of the > resolution does not agree with the acceptance by the proposer of a formal > amendment, the amendment remains as an amendment and will be voted on. > >

Re: [BALLOT] Social Contract Change Amendment

On Mon, Oct 09, 2000 at 10:54:26PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: > Eek, no. If Towns wanted a separate GR, he would have proposed one. > Instead, he proposed an *amendment*, which, if it succeeds, amends the > proposal, but does not thereby adopt it. It's not appropriate to apply Robert's Ru

Re: [BALLOT] Social Contract Change Amendment

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Branden Robinson) writes: > Eh? No ballots need to be issued to "ratify" an amendment *AS* an > amendment to an existing proposal: > > A.1.2. A formal amendment may be accepted by the resolution's proposer, in > which case the formal resolution draft is immediately changed to

Re: [BALLOT] Social Contract Change Amendment

Bernd Eckenfels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Mon, Oct 09, 2000 at 08:06:36PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: > > You can vote either way here without liking the one you vote for > > today. For example, you might think both are horrible ideas, but > > think John's is certain not to pass but

Re: [BALLOT] Social Contract Change Amendment

I'll get this out of the way for those following along at home: On Mon, Oct 09, 2000 at 08:06:36PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: > Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Also, it is still not clear to what question the ballot answers of

Re: [BALLOT] Social Contract Change Amendment

On Mon, Oct 09, 2000 at 08:06:36PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: > You can vote either way here without liking the one you vote for > today. For example, you might think both are horrible ideas, but > think John's is certain not to pass but Anthony's might. In that > case, you would vote not

Re: [BALLOT] Social Contract Change Amendment

On Mon, Oct 09, 2000 at 07:49:19PM -0500, Debian Project Secretary wrote: > -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- > [ ] Choice 1: Yes > [ 1 ] Choice 2: No > [ 2 ] Choice 3: Further Discussion > > -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=

Re: [BALLOT] Social Contract Change Amendment

On Mon, Oct 09, 2000 at 10:54:26PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: > Eek, no. If Towns wanted a separate GR, he would have proposed one. > Instead, he proposed an *amendment*, which, if it succeeds, amends the > proposal, but does not thereby adopt it. It's not appropriate to apply Robert's R

Re: [BALLOT] Social Contract Change Amendment

Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Also, it is still not clear to what question the ballot answers of "yes" or > "no" are being given. It doesn't seem like that simple a matter, since a > person could disagree with both Anthony's amendment and John's GR. The question being presented

Re: [BALLOT] Social Contract Change Amendment

On Mon, Oct 09, 2000 at 07:49:19PM -0500, Debian Project Secretary wrote: > These instructions are a little clearer Since the meanings of "Choice 1" and "Choice 2" exchanged meanings, I assume that all votes cast with the first ballot will be discarded and the submitters asked to vote again us

[BALLOT] Social Contract Change Amendment

These instructions are a little clearer - CALL FOR VOTES (1 of 2) Votes must be received by 23:59:59 UTC Oct 23, 2000 This vote is being conducted as required by the Debia

[BALLOT] Social Contract Change Amendment

CALL FOR VOTES (1 of 2) Votes must be received by 23:59:59 UTC Oct 23, 2000 This vote is being conducted as required by the Debian Constitution. For voting questions only contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] For details on Choice 1, see http://www.deb