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 ballot. 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? Cheers, OdyX [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.