Re: Please review proposed resolution: Re: Bug#535645: Wrongfull removal of ia32-libs-tools

[Bdale Garbee <bdale@gag.com>]

On Sun, 2009-08-30 at 10:23 +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> * Steve Langasek (vorlon@debian.org) [090830 09:09]:
> > On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 11:48:14PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > > * Bdale Garbee (bdale@gag.com) [090825 21:09]:
> > > > So, let's have three choices.  Steve's resolution, further discussion,
> > > > and a re-stated version of Goswin's option along these lines:
> > 
> > > >         agrees that there was insufficient justification to remove the
> > > >         ia32-libs-tools package from the archive.  The ftp team is
> > > >         therefore directed to, within one week of the conclusion of this
> > > >         vote, either reinstate the package to the archive, or petition
> > > >         the technical committee to reconsider this issue by
> > > >         communicating further justification for their original decision.
> > 
> > > How about:
> > > ... archive, or provide the maintainer and the technical committee
> > > further justification for their original decision. In that case the
> > > committee will make another final decision on this topic, considering
> > > the justifications.
> > 
> > Is there an agreement about which of these to put on the ballot, or should I
> > include each of these proposals separately?
> 
> Bdales and mine shouldn't be both on the ballot - Bdale, which one
> should be on it?

I don't really care.  I like the wording of mine better, since it
doesn't make stumble over the word 'final'.  But I don't expect either
to garner many votes, so I'm not inclined to spend more time polishing
the text.

Bdale