Bug#727708: Call for votes on init system resolution
Steve Langasek writes ("Re: Bug#727708: Call for votes on init system resolution"):
> I am very unhappy to see this CFV in my inbox this morning.
I'm sorry about that.
> I made it known that I was not satisfied with the set of ballot
> options, and I was still in the process of drafting language to try
> to identify a consensus position
You mean your message of "Sat, 1 Feb 2014 15:34:08 -0500", I take it.
That was after the formal proposal had been made. So it was open to
you to formally propose an amendment.
In response to that message:
* Don and Russ (who didn't like L) said that your proposed S was no
better than L.
* I (who don't like T) said that your proposed S was like a version
of T for me.
* I explicitly asked you (at Sun, 2 Feb 2014 09:34:45 +0000)
whether you wanted to delay the vote for redrafting, formally
propose some version of your S, or something else.
I don't remember seeing a warning in your mail of the 1st of February
that you would be out of touch and that we should not call for a vote.
In the absence of such a respose from you, I didn't get the impression
you were wanting a delay. Neither I think did anyone else.
The original plan was to call for a vote on Monday. We delayed this
for two days because of other amendments following comments.
> I don't think it's reasonable to give a
> 48-hour deadline, during a work week, in the body of one message among
> dozens. With nothing to call attention to itself, that message sat unread
> in my box among a pile of others until just now, when it's too late.
The whole of the body text was this:
Ian Jackson writes ("Bug#727708: package to change init systems"):
> I would be happy to do this. Anyone object to me prefixing
> Therefore, for jessie and later releases:
> before the T/L "Software ..." paragraphs ?
Following another exchange on IRC I have now done this in git, and I
hereby propose and accept that amendment (to all versions). The
result is as below.
I now intend to do the CFV at 16:30 UTC on Wednesday.
I'm sorry if that wasn't sufficiently clear. Perhaps I should have
changed the Subject too.
> This is substantially the same as Bdale's earlier CFV, which you objected to
> at the time.
Unlike Bdale's CFV this one:
- includes the agreed GR rider;
- had a nonzero discussion period; indeed a discusson period of
nearly a week, during which any TC member could have ensured that
any options of their choice were on the ballot by proposing them;
(those two were my procedural objections); and
- includes some answer to the coupling question (which was my
> Since this vote will almost certainly result in a resolution passing, I
> think I will need to begin drafting a follow-up resolution to address this,
> under 6.1.1.
That's your privilege of course.
Under the circumstances I'm quite prepared to give you a chance to do
the drafting work you want to do. Particularly since Kurt has