Bug#717076: libjpeg draft resolution
(resending because of some 8-bit header damage)
Kurt Roeckx writes ("Bug#717076: libjpeg draft resolution"):
> So if you really want to prevent using a supermajority, I suggest
> you write is so that you at least don't mention the other package
> by name but make it more general.
Seriously ?
> I also suggest you don't mention the name libjpeg-dev directly but
> instead use words to describe it so that it still applies when it
> needs to be renamed for whatever reason.
I think this is contrary to the requirement that the resolution be
clear. Given that I think we're not going to be short a 3:1 majority
on this, I doubt it really matters in this case, but I'm disappointed.
In general I worry that your interpretation of resolution texts
focuses far too much on the exact words used, and far too little on
the substance of the underlying issues.
In this particular case we have two packages both of which want to
claim the libjpeg-dev virtual package name, which for technical
reasons ought to be provided by only one of them. Clearly this is a
question of overlapping jurisdictions.
The fact that the resolution to this matter of overlapping
jurisdictions will result in specific changes having to be made to one
or more packages does not mean that the decision is about overruling
the maintainer of the "losing" package. _Any_ decision about
overlapping jurisdictions will necessarily involve directing that
certain changes be made to one or more packages which their respective
maintainers will not be happy with.
I.e. your interpretation as I understand it so far entirely
eviscerates the TC's power to rule in case of overlapping
jurisdictions. In your view as you have presented it here it appears
the TC could say something vague and abstract with 1:1 but if we
actually want the losing maintainer to give up the virtual package
name we will need to vote again with 3:1.
Please reconsider.
Thanks,
Ian.
Reply to: