Re: Short descriptions of GR proposals on ballot
Scripsit Florian Weimer <fw@deneb.enyo.de>
> Henning Makholm <henning@makholm.net> writes:
> > I solicit comments about the above from -vote in general, but I
> > would especially like to hear reactions from the proponent of each
> > proposal.
> Given that most of the GR proposals are written to work around our
> RM's conscience, it would be helpful to point out which proposals
> actually achieve this goal.
Yes in principle, but it would be wrong to try to do so if one is not
the RM. Unless we see a definite announcement from the RM saying
"this and this proposal will allow me to release sarge with
DFSG-nonfree <foo> in it, but that and that will not", I'm not going
to try to second-guess him on the ballot draft.
And *if* we see such an announcement, I'd expect the proposals that do
not achieve the goal to be either withdrawn or adjusted. Only if that
does not happen will there be any point in letting the ballot text
point out the problem. (Rumor has it that we'll have a further
proposal that explicitly resolves to do nothing and let Sarge be
delayed, but if so, it will be easy to make that clear in the short
description).
Furthermore, it's not entirely a binary issue. For example, a
reasonable answer in the case of the current proposal A might be: Yes,
this will fix the problem but only if other matters do not delay the
release of Sarge beyond September. It would be hard to come up with a
short encoding of such ifs and buts that would not confuse more than
they help. And just "rounding off" the answer to "yes" might be seen
as misleading.
I don't think there is any other option than for each DD to read the
detailed proposals and think through their consequences (or lack of
same) before making up his mind.
--
Henning Makholm "Punctuation, is? fun!"
Reply to: