On Thu, Nov 09, 2000 at 03:13:45AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> ==
> Proposal A: Set up Foundation Documents, and allow for issuing,
> modifying, and withdrawing of non technical documents
> ==
On Sun, Nov 12, 2000 at 10:34:43PM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> i second proposal A but do not second proposal B.
The whole point of Manoj's mail was to present a joint proposal, which
(AIUI) requires seconds as such. Its purpose is to place both proposals on
the same ballot, so that they may be
On Sun, Nov 12, 2000 at 04:09:37PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 12, 2000 at 10:34:43PM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> > i second proposal A but do not second proposal B.
>
> The whole point of Manoj's mail was to present a joint proposal,
> which (AIUI) requires seconds as such. It
Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> should i be required to support your proposal against my will and
> judgement? i'm certainly not going to vote for it so you lose nothing -
> and i imagine that you should be able to pick up the required number of
> sponsors for your proposal anyway...an
On Mon, Nov 13, 2000 at 11:07:24AM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 12, 2000 at 04:09:37PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > On Sun, Nov 12, 2000 at 10:34:43PM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> > > i second proposal A but do not second proposal B.
> >
> > The whole point of Manoj's mail was
On Mon, Nov 13, 2000 at 12:03:19AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> No, he presented a proposed *ballot*, intended to serve for both pending
> GR's . One atomic unit. The bits that comprise it have already been
> proposed, seconded, and seen Calls for Votes.
First: Apart from the missing "reject
Anthony Towns writes:
> Given this, A.3.1 and A.3.2 seem to imply that we have to have two
> votes, one to determine whether Branden's preferred form, or Manoj's
> will be used, and one on whether to amend the constitution in whatever
> form. Indeed, the proposed ballot seems to violate the last
On Sun, Nov 12, 2000 at 09:40:39PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Anthony Towns writes:
> > Given this, A.3.1 and A.3.2 seem to imply that we have to have two
> > votes, one to determine whether Branden's preferred form, or Manoj's
> > will be used, and one on whether to amend the constituti
On Thu, Nov 09, 2000 at 03:13:45AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> ==
> Proposal A: Set up Foundation Documents, and allow for issuing,
> modifying, and withdrawing of non technical documents
> =
On Sun, Nov 12, 2000 at 10:34:43PM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> i second proposal A but do not second proposal B.
The whole point of Manoj's mail was to present a joint proposal, which
(AIUI) requires seconds as such. Its purpose is to place both proposals on
the same ballot, so that they may b
On Sun, Nov 12, 2000 at 04:09:37PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 12, 2000 at 10:34:43PM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> > i second proposal A but do not second proposal B.
>
> The whole point of Manoj's mail was to present a joint proposal,
> which (AIUI) requires seconds as such. I
Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> should i be required to support your proposal against my will and
> judgement? i'm certainly not going to vote for it so you lose nothing -
> and i imagine that you should be able to pick up the required number of
> sponsors for your proposal anyway...a
On Mon, Nov 13, 2000 at 11:07:24AM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 12, 2000 at 04:09:37PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > On Sun, Nov 12, 2000 at 10:34:43PM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> > > i second proposal A but do not second proposal B.
> >
> > The whole point of Manoj's mail was
On Mon, Nov 13, 2000 at 12:03:19AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> No, he presented a proposed *ballot*, intended to serve for both pending
> GR's . One atomic unit. The bits that comprise it have already been
> proposed, seconded, and seen Calls for Votes.
First: Apart from the missing "rejec
Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Given this, A.3.1 and A.3.2 seem to imply that we have to have two
> votes, one to determine whether Branden's preferred form, or Manoj's
> will be used, and one on whether to amend the constitution in whatever
> form. Indeed, the proposed ballot seems
On Sun, Nov 12, 2000 at 09:40:39PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Given this, A.3.1 and A.3.2 seem to imply that we have to have two
> > votes, one to determine whether Branden's preferred form, or Manoj's
> > will be used, and one on whether to
On Mon, Nov 13, 2000 at 03:32:41PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> But I don't see how this fits in with the constitution. We're operating,
> I presume, under the `standard resolution procedure', ie appendix A. We've
> has a proposal (Branden's, I guess) which has been proposed and seconded,
> and w
On Mon, Nov 13, 2000 at 02:33:56AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 13, 2000 at 03:32:41PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > But I don't see how this fits in with the constitution. We're operating,
> > I presume, under the `standard resolution procedure', ie appendix A. We've
> > has a p
On Mon, Nov 13, 2000 at 03:49:15PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> We aren't? Then why do both Branden's and Manoj's proposals have separate
> lists of seconds?
For the same reason my resolution and John Goerzen's non-free one do.
They're separate resolutions.
> If A.3.1 doesn't apply, surely A.3
Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Then how can they possibly be voted on together?
Because their proponents, seconders, and the Secretary think this is
the most sensible way to proceed, and they're right. And you think
they're right, and nobody's said they're wrong. If you like, we c
On Mon, Nov 13, 2000 at 05:36:23PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 13, 2000 at 02:33:56AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 13, 2000 at 03:32:41PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > > But I don't see how this fits in with the constitution. We're operating,
> > > I presume, unde
21 matches
Mail list logo
