[Foundation-l] Clarification to existing resolutions

Ray Saintonge saintonge at telus.net
Thu May 17 09:21:32 UTC 2007

Florence Devouard wrote:

>Erik Moeller wrote:
>>On 5/16/07, Florence Devouard <Anthere9 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>Purely practical issue.
>>>I'd prefer to do a Resolution:Licensing policy2 and Resolution:Access to
>>>nonpublic data2.
>>>It makes it easier to immediately see there is a more recent version.
>>>Whilst few people can *guess* there is somewhere a resolution updating
>>>the policy.
>>>Just pick up the previous resolution, and put an addendum at the bottom.
>>>What do you think ?
>>We can just transclude or link the amendment resolution at the bottom
>>of the original one with a prominent notice that it has been updated.
>I do not think it is practical.
>Two reasons
>Right now, we have a common resolution to fix several unrelated points. 
>I do not think it is such a good idea to do it this way, as some people 
>might agree with one point, disagree with another. Then might vote 
>against even though they might agree with some points.
>Generally, I think we should always stick to one resolution <-> one topic.
Absolutely, and any Board member should be free to ask that the 
resolution be divided.  This resolution purports to amend two unrelated 
resolutions to accomplish unrelated aims.

A word about clarifying the language.  Use different terms to signify 
what is being proposed, and what has been adopted.  Unfortunately, 
"resolution" is ambiguous in that it can be used for either; it should 
not be used for both by the same organisation.  "Proposal" and "policy" 
could avoid that ambiguity.

When proposing something "clarify" is an implicitly POV word.  What may 
clarify things for the proposer, can seem a complete muddle to another 
person..  Better to say something like, "Paragraph 4 of the policy is 
amended by adding thereto the following words: ...  Such wording may 
seem dry boring and legalese, but most importantly it is precise.

>Second reason is that when we want to refer to a resolution, it is much 
>easier to go to the resolution page, and simply copy paste the text. If 
>we copy paste the text, then have to go to one, maybe two, one day three 
>perhaps, updates, and insert the modifications accordingly in relevant 
>paragraph, this is a time loss and a risk for mistakes. I would rather 
>prefer a brand new resolution, refering to an old one, and canceling the 
>old one. On the old one, we can link to the new one and mention the old 
>is no more valid.
>Or... another solution (probably better) would be to separate the text 
>of the resolution from the page of the policy itself. The resolution 
>point to a specific version of the policy. The second update resolution 
>simply points to a new version of the policy. In such case, the policy 
>page is always updated and there is no risk of confusion.
I can't be sure about just what you are trying to say :-( , but it seems 
to relate to how policy is presented.

The current policy is what has been duly adopted by the Board, and it is 
what you direct people to when they ask what the policy is.  Unless 
there is an issue about the effective dates of amendments it includes 
all amendments.  You can have historical material about the passage of 
the original resolution and its amenments, but these are all additional 
to the policy itself.  Sometimes you may want to replace the whole 
policy, but the problem with that kind of proposal is that it opens up 
everything to discussion rather than just the specific points that you 
want changed.


More information about the foundation-l mailing list