headers
Wouter Verhelst | 19 May 2012 20:55
Picon
Favicon
Gravatar

(maybe) constitutional amendment: clarification of section 5.1.5

Hi all,

When I read the constitution so many years ago for the first time, there
were some things that stuck, and others that didn't. One of the things
that stuck was a particular power of the DPL which I hadn't seen used
in, like, forever. And when I wanted to send a private mail to our
current DPL about that subject, I noticed that my reading of the
constitution may have been in error.

Section 3.1.2 of the constitution reads as follows:

[...An individual developer may...]
2. Propose or sponsor draft General Resolutions

whereas section 5.1.5 reads as follows:

[...The project leader may...]
5. Propose draft General Resolutions and amendments.

I had always, probably incorrectly, interpreted the lack of the words
"or sponsor" in that sentence as meaning that a GR proposal from the
project leader doesn't actually require sponsors.

That interpretation probably would have made sense if the word "draft"
wasn't in that sentence: in that case, non-DPL DD's could propose
"draft" GR statements, which would become "proposed" GR statements upon
acquiring enough seconds, and "GR" statements once they had been voted
upon. Had it not used "draft", then the Project Leader could bypass the
"draft" phase in that order. But at any rate, that's not what it says.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
Steve Langasek | 20 May 2012 01:57
Picon
Favicon

Re: (maybe) constitutional amendment: clarification of section 5.1.5

Hi Wouter,

On Sat, May 19, 2012 at 08:55:39PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> When I read the constitution so many years ago for the first time, there
> were some things that stuck, and others that didn't. One of the things
> that stuck was a particular power of the DPL which I hadn't seen used
> in, like, forever. And when I wanted to send a private mail to our
> current DPL about that subject, I noticed that my reading of the
> constitution may have been in error.

> Section 3.1.2 of the constitution reads as follows:

> [...An individual developer may...]
> 2. Propose or sponsor draft General Resolutions

> whereas section 5.1.5 reads as follows:

> [...The project leader may...]
> 5. Propose draft General Resolutions and amendments.

> I had always, probably incorrectly, interpreted the lack of the words
> "or sponsor" in that sentence as meaning that a GR proposal from the
> project leader doesn't actually require sponsors.

I'm quite certain that's the correct interpretation.  Why do you now think
this interpretation is incorrect?

> That interpretation probably would have made sense if the word "draft"
> wasn't in that sentence: in that case, non-DPL DD's could propose
> "draft" GR statements, which would become "proposed" GR statements upon
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
Kurt Roeckx | 20 May 2012 02:17
Picon

Re: (maybe) constitutional amendment: clarification of section 5.1.5

On Sat, May 19, 2012 at 04:57:56PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> 
> Rejected amendments, i.e. those
> that result in additional ballot options, do not reset the discussion
> period.

I think they do reset the discussion period when they get accepted
(have enough seconds), but I would need to re-read that to confirm
it.

Kurt
Permalink | Reply |
headers
Steve Langasek | 20 May 2012 03:18
Picon
Favicon

Re: (maybe) constitutional amendment: clarification of section 5.1.5

On Sun, May 20, 2012 at 02:17:49AM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> On Sat, May 19, 2012 at 04:57:56PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:

> > Rejected amendments, i.e. those
> > that result in additional ballot options, do not reset the discussion
> > period.

> I think they do reset the discussion period when they get accepted
> (have enough seconds), but I would need to re-read that to confirm
> it.

Please re-read - this is not what "accepted" means in the context of an
amendment :)

--

-- 
Steve Langasek                   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer                   to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developer                                    http://www.debian.org/
slangasek <at> ubuntu.com                                     vorlon <at> debian.org
Permalink | Reply |
headers
Kurt Roeckx | 20 May 2012 14:40
Picon

Re: (maybe) constitutional amendment: clarification of section 5.1.5

On Sat, May 19, 2012 at 06:18:29PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Sun, May 20, 2012 at 02:17:49AM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> > On Sat, May 19, 2012 at 04:57:56PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> 
> > > Rejected amendments, i.e. those
> > > that result in additional ballot options, do not reset the discussion
> > > period.
> 
> > I think they do reset the discussion period when they get accepted
> > (have enough seconds), but I would need to re-read that to confirm
> > it.
> 
> Please re-read - this is not what "accepted" means in the context of an
> amendment :)

After re-reading it, I have to agree.

Kurt
Permalink | Reply |

Gmane