Bug#727708: Call for votes on init system resolution

[Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk>]

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.

  Thanks,
  Ian.

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
   substantive objection).

> 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
objected too.

Ian.