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

Bug#727708: Call for votes on init system resolution

Russ Allbery writes ("Bug#727708: Call for votes on init system resolution"):
> To say explicitly to avoid making people read my mind: I think Kurt's
> concerns can be dealt with by a separate vote if necessary, so while I
> don't object to cancelling the vote for that, I'm also not sure it's
> necessary.

I would prefer to deal with this in the same resolution, as I have
already said.  I'm sorry that I didn't make sure Kurt was properly
involved in the drafting.

>  However, if Steve would like to cancel the vote to have more
> time to draft his compromise, I'm happy to do so.

For me, a desire to cancel the vote would follow directly from being
upset that the vote had started.  But this whole thread has
demonstrated to me in many ways that what I think is obvious is far
from uncontentious.

> I therefore intend to change my vote to list FD first iff Steve does the
> same, since I think it's up to him to decide whether he wants to stop,
> rework, and start again, or just continue on since the vote has started
> anyway.
> I'm open to being convinced that I have this backwards and should just
> change my vote now.

I think Steve's failure to rank FD first is probably a procedural
error on his part.  I've tried to catch him on IRC but not had a clear
response yet.

Or perhaps he feels it would be rude to rank FD first to try to vote
down what he felt was a premature CFV.  But as I have said I think
that's exactly what FD is for.  FD means precisely "further
discussion".  So, Steve, if that's what's holding you back please do
change your vote.


Reply to: