[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

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:


 (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.


Since this resolution does not overrule a maintainer, simple majority is

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"

          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."

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: