❦ 4 juin 2019 15:47 +01, Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk>: > If not, how do you think the question you pose should be answered ? > Since it is a question of tradeoffs, with no definite right or wrong > answer, perhaps we should hold a GR ? What do you think the result of > such a GR would be ? > > I think such a GR would be a collosal waste of time. This issue is > not important enough. In particular, because the consensus is *not* > that you will *have to* change your packages. What this discussion > has mostly concluded is that we should issue a *recommendation*. > *Not* a mandate. Well, a GR can be quick and it would help to know where people stand instead of having a few vocal people decide for everyone. I think we should impose the use of "dh" for bullseye (with an exception for teams with more then 50 packages), but I honestly don't know how much this opinion is shared. It seems there is a pattern to dissuade people to hold a GR. The last GR I remember is about changing "Chairman" to "Chair" in our constitution. I don't remember it was a waste of time and it was pretty quick. And the last "technical" GR was for systemd in 2014. We are in a project where it is very hard to be heard because you can only participate in endless debates. -- Let him choose out of my files, his projects to accomplish. -- Shakespeare, "Coriolanus"
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature