Re: Proposal: General Resolution on Init Systems and systemd Facilities

[Kurt Roeckx <kurt@roeckx.be>]

On Wed, Nov 20, 2019 at 09:58:51AM -0500, Sam Hartman wrote:
> >>>>> "Ian" == Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes:
> 
>     Ian> Sam Hartman writes ("Proposal: General Resolution on Init
>     Ian> Systems and systemd Facilities"):
>     >> Timeline: I think that two weeks for discussion of this GR seems
>     >> about right based on what's happened in the last week.  The
>     >> constitution allows the DPL to change the discussion period by up
>     >> to a week.  The discussion period is normally reset by the
>     >> proposer accepting any amendment or making a modification to the
>     >> proposal.  If an amendment is accepted, I am likely to use that
>     >> power such that the discussion period is the longer of two weeks
>     >> from when the secretary sends mail to debian-devel-announce, or
>     >> seven days past the time of the last amendment being accepted.
>     >> In other words, if I accept an amendment in the next week, I'm
>     >> likely to keep the total discussion period at two weeks.
> 
> To clarify, my understanding is that the discussion period started
> November 16.
> So, we're talking about a minimum discussion period expiring  on
> November 30.
> 
> I assumed the secretary would interpret the constitution differently and
> that only the proposer of the original resolution could accept
> amendments.
> I seem to recall Manoj interpreted things that way back in the day.
> So, at the time I wrote that text, I was under the mistaken belief that
> I was the only one who could accept amendments.  (I'm glad the secretary
> has interpreted things differently.)
> 
> My assumption is still that only me accepting amendments resets the
> minimum discussion period.
> If that's not how the secretary sees things then I don't understand this
> process at all and will need to have a re-read of the constitution and a
> re-think about things.
> I'm not making a value judgment about what the constitution should say,
> just a judgment about past practice and my reading of the constitution.
> 
> Another way to understand what I intended is that I will do what I can
> to keep the minimum discussion period ending at November 30.

I always struggle with trying to understand that part, but my
current interpretation is different. The page shows the discussion
perriod starting at the 19th, which is when Ian's proposal got
enough sponsors.


Kurt