Re: TC-initiated GRs, redux

[Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org>]

Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes:

> I'd appreciate a final round of review (especially by TC members and
> the Secretary) at this stage.  If that is broadly positive I intend to
> propose these as TC resolutions shortly after Debconf.

> The files are:

>   informal-propose              allow private discussion (const. change)

I'm fine with this, although I'm mildly in favor of counterproductive
instead of infeasible or unconstructive now that we've had some more
discussion.  I think the more general discussion of whether we need to say
something stronger would be fine to have during the discussion period of
the GR (and since I'm sure there will be comments there, I don't want to
spend too much time "pre-discussing" it).

>   numberfix-propose             fix A.1 numbering (const. change)

Looks good here.

>   supermajority-propose         fix overrule fencepost (const. change)

I have a mild preference, following Anthony's comment, to say "if a
supermajority of N:M" instead of "if a majority of N:M", but I'm still
fine with this either way.

>   overrule-propose              advice re overruling (advisory)

I think this is fine to start the GR conversation.  I expect there to be a
lot of discussion.

>   amend-propose                 amendment procedure, to be appended to each

Seems fine.

Thanks for your work on this!

-- 
Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org)               <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>