Looks to me like the only reasonable next step, since the user considers it
sufficiently important to ask for it to be open/wontfix (which might not be
unreasonable), and others insist that it be closed completely (which also
might not be unreasonable), is to ask... well, I'd guess the tech-ctty,
except that this isn't really a *technical* bug, exactly...
FWIW, while I'm not sure if I agree with the assertion that it is a
problem, I do think the submitter deserves some level of justification for
why it isn't left open/wontfix, since that is, in fact, what the default
state for "can't agree on whether it's a bug" is really supposed to be,
according to my reading of the relevant documents.
Remember, it takes two people to play tennis (or, in this case, what
appears to be one person, and a whole chorus line on the other side of the
court, but the point remains). I really fail to see a compelling reason,
for my part, as to why:
severity wishlist
tags +wontfix
won't result in a compromise that is, if not perfect, at least within what
we say we'll do.
Failing that, the only other answer to resolve it (in any truly final
sense, if anything could be final about it) would be for the submitter to
convince enough DDs to get a GR into the voting process, for the change.
(Okay, that would have to happen anyway, at least before a change could
be made, but since the submitter has, in fact, expressed a willingness
to compromise on something less wasteful of everyone's time than either
probably-spurious GRs, or bug tennis, I find the reply in rather bad form).
Frankly, I'd wonder if the most suitable answer isn't simply an annotation
of some form, to the effect of "[1] Since one can't have fractional
developers, and the rule is 'at least', we always round up to the next
integer". That might also be excessive, but as a footnote which explains
the math, rather than as part of the core text, it would make more sense.
However, that way may lie the madness of a cluttered document, since the
Constitution isn't meant to be a textbook.
Maybe we need the Commentaries? Actually, that may not be such a bad idea,
given recent issues over things like the DFSG, and the fact that it has
taken years for the origional author to clarify the intent while they were
being written.
--
Joel Baker <fenton@debian.org> ,''`.
Debian GNU NetBSD/i386 porter : :' :
`. `'
`-
Attachment:
pgpxnmX8CD4lp.pgp
Description: PGP signature