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

Re: Discussion: Possible GR: Enhance requirements for General Resolutions

Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 01:50:37AM +0100, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
>>>  b) Delaying a decision of a Delegate or the DPL [§4.2(2.2)],
>>>     as well as resolutions against a shortening of discussion/voting
>>>     period or to overwrite a TC decision [§4.2(2.3)] requires floor(Q)
>>>     developers to sponsor the resolution.
>>>  c) the definition of K gets erased from the constitution. [§4.2(7)]
>> what I'd like to add here is something in the lines of
>> d) If a resolution will affect an upcoming release which is already 
>>   frozen, the resolution needs twice the number of sponsors as defined 
>>   in a).
>> This should help to avoid that some random people try to stop a release 
>> in the latest moment if there's not a really good reason to do so. If 
>> we want Debian to be used in business ("enterprise" *gasp*) 
>> installations, we should at least be able to tell people when we're 
>> about to release, without having them to fear a delay for months or 
>> years due to a GR.
> I disagree: Debian release when ready, not in time. Which is good!
> If anyone creates a vote close to (expected) release, then they have a 
> good reason to do that. Which we should not suppress by designing our 
> rules to favor releasing "in time".

If there's a good reason to create the GR I'm sure they'd find enough
sponsors. Realeasing in time becomes more and more important these days - so I
can't see anything wrong here.

 Bernd Zeimetz                           Debian GNU/Linux Developer
 GPG Fingerprint: 06C8 C9A2 EAAD E37E 5B2C BE93 067A AD04 C93B FF79

Reply to: