Le mer, 14/07/2004 à 13:50 -0600, Joel Baker a écrit : > > Correct, a resolution that says "Foo must perform action A, instead of > > not performing action A" is explicitly a no-op under the constitution, > > and is also obviously silly. > > Correct. The appropriate GR is "Foo shall be removed for failure to perform > the duties of $position", with the rationale citing "failure to perform > action A, a duty of $position". Currently, the destiny of amd64 is in the hands of the release manager and FTP masters, but that's not in their "duties" to add it. However, should the GR pass, I hope the DPL would have the honesty to remove the delegates who would fail to comply with it. > On a sidenote, I might well vote for a GR that directs the ftpmasters to > add the amd64 architecture to sid with all achieveable speed as a technical > decision overridding the (apparently de-facto) decision of the ftpmasters, > under the auspice of section 4.1.3 of the constitution; I think it is > neither adviseable nor reasonable to forcibly declare that it must be in > sarge, though I do think that realistically, if we as a project want to be > in any way able toc laim to have our users' interests at heart, we should > plan for and expect that amd64 will be part of Sarge in a point release, > even if it hasn't managed to propagate completely to testing by the main > release date. There seems to be several supporters of this position. You should probably write an amendment asking for immediate inclusion in sid, but letting the sarge decision in the hands of the release manager. -- .''`. Josselin Mouette /\./\ : :' : josselin.mouette@ens-lyon.org `. `' joss@debian.org `- Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Ceci est une partie de message =?ISO-8859-1?Q?num=E9riquement?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?_sign=E9e?=