Re: Constitutional issues in the wake of Lenny
Matthew Johnson wrote:
> On Sat Mar 14 12:14, Luk Claes wrote:
>> I think the reason there were no comments is just because you tried to
>> cover the whole field, I would rather take one point at a time.
> Sure, please do follow up with separate emails if you prefer.
Hmm, I thought you were going to lead the discussion and not just send a
IMHO giant proposal to be commented on.
>>> I also believe that the secretary should have the power to refuse to run
>>> a ballot option (by delaying the vote as appropriate) if he believes
>>> that it contradicts a FD but the ballot option itself does not
>>> explicitly claim to or otherwise resolve this problem.
>> I don't see what this power to refuse would by us other than getting a
>> similar situation we had with the previous Secretary? I would rather
>> give the Secretary the power to delay a ballot for a limited amount of
>> time to actively try to clarify the ambiguity.
> No, Manoj believed (correctly or no) that he should mark them as
> super-majority if he thought they contradicted an FD, which the people
> who posted them disagreed with. I'm saying that the secretary can delay
> (possibly indefinitely) such a vote until it's made explicit.
Well, this is far from easy as even if you say explicitly that it does
not contradict, some people will still think it contradicts. So then
we're at a point we need to know who can decide about one or the other?
> (I think we actually agree about both of these issues)
>> If a known DFSG issue is in sid, that means there is no problem with
>> distributing it (or the FTP Team is not acting). By the way if the
>> Release Team would ignore DFSG issues, one would not find a Release Team
>> action that shows this fact. Tagging them <release>-ignore, is not
>> ignoring the bugs, but telling our developers that we don't think the
>> issue should delay the release.
> Yes, this is what I think and tried to say in my previous mail.
>>> WRT the other issues, I'm happy with the seconding and supermajority
>>> options as they are, so won't be proposing we change them.
>> So is Dato leading the discussion for these other options?
> Anyone who wants to change them. I tried starting off that discussion,
> but noone followed up. I'm not about to propose running a vote to keep
> them as they are...
Hmm, I thought the reason we delayed it till after the release is so we
could discuss things and only when we have a consensus to change or seem
to have clear options, to get to a vote.
As I saw your name mentioned next to the constitutional issues, I
thought you were going to tackle one point after another to lead the
discussions and not just to try to defend your own views?