Results of technical committee vote on mixmaster /etc/default/*
Hmm, all the trouble of discussing and voting, and then nobody tallies the
ballots. :) FWIW, this was brought to my attention because I was consulted
on a similar bug report on /another/ package, so I think we ought to get
these results up on the webpage where they can be pointed at.
>From <18259.11794.946342.985863@davenant.relativity.greenend.org.uk>, the
resolution was:
-8<-
(1) The REMAIL option should not be supplanted or supplemented by
anything in an /etc/default file. The current behaviour of the
mixmaster init script, to examine /etc/mixmaster/remailer.conf's
REMAIL option, is correct.
(2) Policy is clear and correct, and need not be changed.
-8<-
Since this resolution does not overrule a maintainer, simple majority is
required.
The votes were:
Choice K-->: Keep current behaviour and existing policy, as above.
/ Choice F->: Further discussion
|/
V: 12 Andreas Barth [1]
V: 21 Anthony Towns [2]
V: 12 Ian Jackson [3]
V: 12 Manoj Srivastava [4]
V: 12 Steve Langasek [5]
In the following table, tally[row x][col y] represents the votes that
option x received over option y.
Option K "Keep current behavior and existing policy, as above."
Option F "Further discussion"
Option
K F
= =
Option K 4
Option F 1
Option K defeats Option F by (4 - 1) = 3 votes.
The Schwartz contains:
Option K "Keep current behavior and existing policy, as above."
The winner is:
Option K "Keep current behavior and existing policy, as above."
Cheers,
--
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@ubuntu.com vorlon@debian.org
[1] <20071206122010.GG30144@mails.so.argh.org>
[2] <20071205034047.GA23911@blae.erisian.com.au>
[3] <18259.11794.946342.985863@davenant.relativity.greenend.org.uk>
[4] <871wa2jtwt.fsf@anzu.internal.golden-gryphon.com>
[5] <20071206085144.GA16980@dario.dodds.net>
P.S. - Ian, you seem to be the only one who didn't PGP-sign your ballot.
While this isn't required as part of the SRP in the constitution, nor was it
specified in your CfV as a requirement, it would probably leave less room
for ambiguity if we all signed our votes in the future.
Reply to: