Public SourceMage Discussion List

[Andrew Stitt <afrayedknot AT thefrayedknot.armory.com>]

On Tue, Jun 27, 2006 at 02:01:05PM -0500, Jeremy Blosser wrote:
> On Jun 27, Andrew Stitt [afrayedknot AT thefrayedknot.armory.com] wrote:
> > I second this proposal for the grimoire release procedure.
> 
> The motion in the parent post was:
> > > I'm calling for a motion to vote on the approval of stable/0.4 so we
> > > can get it out the door.
> 
> ie, the actual motion didn't involve grimoire release procedure, just an
> issue vote to do the release.  The "clarified" motion did explicitly talk
> about a release procedure, but no one has seconded that explicitly.
> 
> Do you want to clarify what you're seconding, if anything?

After re-reading the thread and the following discussion we weren't all
clear on what the motion was. I did not second precisely the motion
that was made. I think its ambiguous enough at this point that a point
of order should be called that the motion/second was not valid...

My commentary on this is that I think its a bug in our policy or process
that we got in this situation. The policy is not flexible enough for
those of us who make mistakes.

-Andrew

-- 
_________________________________________________________________________
| Andrew D. Stitt  | acedit at armory.com    | astitt at sourcemage.org | 
| irc: afrayedknot | Sorcery Team Lead       |      ftp://t.armory.com/ |
| 1024D/D39B096C   | 76E4 728A 04EE 62B2 A09A 96D7 4D9E 239B D39B 096C  |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------