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

Bug#741573: Proposed draft of ballot to resolve menu/desktop question

Le mercredi, 29 juillet 2015, 10.29:10 Don Armstrong a écrit :
> On Wed, 29 Jul 2015, Sam Hartman wrote:
> > Unless someone objects
> > I propose that the following text also be included in option b:
> > 
> > Using its power under §6.1.5 to offer advice:
> >    1. The Technical Committee suggests that the maintainers of the
> >    
> >       Debian menu package support translating .desktop files of
> >       packages which do not provide menu files.
> > 
> > I'd like to be able to vote on that option, but I suspect there's no
> > one who favors B who doesn't favor that text.
> Sounds good to me; added.

Are we somehow stuck on this issue?

I unfortunately missed yesterday's TC BoF @DebConf, but what I got from 
the video and re-reading the last meetings' minutes (which I also 
missed, bummer), it appears to me that we have a "orientation" conflict, 
which I'll try to phrase as I understand it:

The current ballot [dla_draft.txt] focuses on deciding between two 
outcomes of the policy process (AB vs C), with two "flavours" (A vs B) 
to actually let us decide whether to explicitely say that we consider 
that the process reached consensus. I understand this ballot as the 
result of the TC (arguably pushed in this direction by some of its fresh 
members) re-focusing the issue on the process question, rather than the 
technical question. As I undertand it, Steve is unhappy with this 

On the other hand, we have Keith's proposal [keithp_draft.txt] that 
explicitely doesn't address the "process question", but comes with an 
explicit technical decision (roughly saying "where a 'menu' entry was 
needed, this should be a .desktop; 'menu' should use .desktop"). As I 
understand the situation, Sam is unhappy with this ballot.

So, how do we move forward with this? I've personally put some thought 
to this issue, have re-read all drafts, and, although I very much 
appreciate Sam's approach and agree with his "consensus achievement" 
conclusions, I now think that Keith's proposal is technically an "even 
better" solution than the original "consensually achieved" solution. 
That said, picking Keith's option doesn't let us (modulo new amendments) 
explicitely give our opinion on how the process worked, but I'm starting 
to think that this might be a good thing, in the end.

What about "just" adding Keith's proposal to the ballot, and let the 
Condorcet magic act?


[dla_draft.txt]		http://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/collab-maint/debian-ctte.git/tree/741573_menu_systems/dla_draft.txt
[keithp_draft.txt]	http://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/collab-maint/debian-ctte.git/tree/741573_menu_systems/keithp_draft.txt

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Reply to: