Bug#727708: Call for votes on init system resolution
On Thu, Feb 06, 2014 at 06:26:09PM +0000, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Kurt Roeckx writes ("Bug#727708: Call for votes on init system resolution"):
> > I think there are basicly 2 ways to go about this:
> > - You revoke your decision during the GR process so that when
> > the GR is being voted on your decision no longer applies and
> > the GR isn't trying to override the ctte. You could for
> > instance do this at the call for votes point.
> > - The GR will be with 2:1 majority and if it comes to a decision
> > other than FD, that will be the result. If the decision of the
> > GR is FD you could go and re-intreprete it with the 2:1 majority
> > dropped.
> > I suggest you go for the first option.
> The Developers have, by way of GR, the ability to express opinions as
> a non-binding "position statement on a matter of the day". This
> requires a 1:1 majority.
That assumes that the text is actually a position statement. I'm
not sure that I can interprete all texts as position statements.
As always, I have to see the text first.
> Do you think the Developers lose that ability if their non-binding
> position statement expresses views which are contrary to a decision of
> the TC ?
I don't see how Developers by way of GR can lose any power by a
body inside or outside Debian.
> Do you think the TC can take into account, in its decisionmaking, the
> non-binding views expressed by bodies such as the Developers in
> General Resolution ? I think, yes.
> Do you think the TC can make its decisions conditional on future
> events ? I think, yes. Is that in any way limited to the kinds of
> future events ? I think not.
I already said they can. But I also said it will depend on the
> If you agree with this reasoning then I'd be grateful if you'd advise
> what form of words should be used to achieve the desired effect. The
> desired effect is that:
> * A GR option containing a non-binding position statement, requiring
> a 1:1 majority, can trigger:
> * Provisions in a TC resolution which is conditional on such a GR,
> * such that the TC declares in advance that the GR's views are to be
> substituted for the TC's.
I guess it should mention that the option in the GR should be a
position statement (and should not try to override the CTTE).