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

Re: Stable security support

On Wed, 2005-12-21 at 12:08 +0100, Adrian von Bidder wrote:
> On Tuesday 20 December 2005 19.33, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > ... it's worth considering a GR ...
> I really liked your analysis up to that point.
> I can't see any reason why we would need a GR here.

I think it's an interesting approach. The issue at hand has been going
on for a long time, and it is needed that something is done. What
especially needed is a decision on how it is going to be solved, and
after the decision has been made, that people work towards reaching that
goal. There's been a lot of talk, but it's needed that there's a clear
decision on the solution for the problem.

The instrument for the Debian project to decide, is a GR. A GR is not
something that should only be used in issues like the constitution. It
can also be used for anything that you want a clear decision on, after
some discussion. Trying to reach a real, clear consensus, especially in
cases like this, is very difficult. It's a fair instrument, because
everyone has an equal vote and it doesn't favour the loudest discussion

A discussion usually ends in the lack of objections, or ends in some
people in favour and others who disagree. In the second case, what do
you do? Are there just a few, loud people in favour and a silent
majority against? Or the other way around? This proposal might bring a
resolution to the trouble. But it will only work if it's clear that it's
widely supported.

So to me the obvious advantage would be that it brings clarity. To ask
you a question: why would you not hold a gr? What disadvantage does it


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

Reply to: