Bug#741573: Proposed draft of ballot to resolve menu/desktop question
On Mon, 17 Aug 2015, Sam Hartman wrote:
> >>>>> "Don" == Don Armstrong <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> Don> On Sun, 16 Aug 2015, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote:
> >> What about "just" adding Keith's proposal to the ballot, and let
> >> the Condorcet magic act?
> Don> This has sort of been my plan; I just have not had enough spare
> Don> cycles in the past few weeks (grant deadlines) to have the time
> Don> necessary to work through Keith's plan and shift it into a
> Don> specific patch to policy.
> If you add Keith's proposal as well as an explanation of our technical
> objection to what debian-policy came up with it, I might even vote for
This is my plan. The proposal needs to be written up as a specific patch
to policy, with a separate rationale, and then we can actually vote on
it as a separate option in the ballot.
I'm trying to find some spare cycles to work on this in the next two
weeks, but if someone beats me to it, excellent.
> If you were to add a recommendation to ballot option B that under
> 6.1.5 we ask debian-policy to consider Keith's proposal, I'd prefer
> that to the current text.
If no one gets around to handling the above, that might be what we have
> While we're not overturning anything in the sense of an override here,
> I think we owe an explanation for our actions, and I feel really
> strongly about that.
Ideally the patch and its rationale should stand alone without the need
for a separate text. But that said, if you disagree that the rationale
is not sufficient once it exists, I'll either try to modify it or draft
a separate text.
Don Armstrong http://www.donarmstrong.com
I don't care how poor and inefficient a little country is; they like
to run their own business. I know men that would make my wife a
better husband than I am; but, darn it, I'm not going to give her to
-- The Best of Will Rogers