Re: Rationale for GRs

2011-03-15 Thread Matthew Vernon
Peter Samuelson writes: > [Matthew Vernon] > > I would like to propose, therefore, the requirement that anyone > > proposing a GR be required to provide a short (no more than, say, 500 > > words) summary of why they believe the GR to be necessary. A similar > > requirement would apply to those pr

Re: Rationale for GRs

2011-03-14 Thread Peter Samuelson
[Matthew Vernon] > I would like to propose, therefore, the requirement that anyone > proposing a GR be required to provide a short (no more than, say, 500 > words) summary of why they believe the GR to be necessary. A similar > requirement would apply to those proposing an amendment. If the ratio

Re: Rationale for GRs

2011-03-11 Thread Matthew Vernon
Martin Meredith writes: > On 11/03/11 12:41, Matthew Vernon wrote: [snip my proposal] > Won't this require a GR to put it into force? I think so, yes. But I thought I'd gather opinions and refine it a bit first. Regards, Matthew -- "At least you know where you are with Microsoft." "True. I

Re: Rationale for GRs

2011-03-11 Thread Don Armstrong
On Fri, 11 Mar 2011, Matthew Vernon wrote: > In the interests of fairness, those opposed to a proposal but not > wishing to amend it should also be allowed a rationale. My > suggestion here would be that A set of DDs (equivalent to the > requirement for amendments) could have an opposing rationale

Re: Rationale for GRs

2011-03-11 Thread Josselin Mouette
Le vendredi 11 mars 2011 à 13:29 +, Martin Meredith a écrit : > On 11/03/11 12:41, Matthew Vernon wrote: > > I've been thinking for a while now that it would be good if general > > resolutions had a Rationale with them. > Won't this require a GR to put it into force? What is the rationale f

Re: Rationale for GRs

2011-03-11 Thread Martin Bagge / brother
On 2011-03-11 14:29, Martin Meredith wrote: > Won't this require a GR to put it into force? Probably. Is that in it self a problem? -- brother http://sis.bthstudent.se -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...

Re: Rationale for GRs

2011-03-11 Thread Martin Meredith
On 11/03/11 15:18, Martin Bagge / brother wrote: On 2011-03-11 14:29, Martin Meredith wrote: Won't this require a GR to put it into force? Probably. Is that in it self a problem Depends, Recursion is never really a good thing. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org

Re: Rationale for GRs

2011-03-11 Thread Martin Meredith
On 11/03/11 12:41, Matthew Vernon wrote: Hi, I've been thinking for a while now that it would be good if general resolutions had a Rationale with them. At the moment, it can be difficult to establish the key arguments for and against a particular proposal, unless you have the time to wade thr

Re: Rationale for GRs

2011-03-11 Thread Amaya
Matthew Vernon wrote: > I've been thinking for a while now that it would be good if general > resolutions had a Rationale with them. At the moment, it can be > difficult to establish the key arguments for and against a particular > proposal, unless you have the time to wade through an often-lengthy

Rationale for GRs

2011-03-11 Thread Matthew Vernon
Hi, I've been thinking for a while now that it would be good if general resolutions had a Rationale with them. At the moment, it can be difficult to establish the key arguments for and against a particular proposal, unless you have the time to wade through an often-lengthy thread on debian-vo