Re: Analysis of the ballot options
On Wed, 2004-06-23 at 09:41, Arthur de Jong wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
>
> > The technical committee is waiting to see the outcome of this GR, but
> > informally
> > http://lists.debian.org/debian-ctte/2004/06/msg00002.html
>
> If the RM has delegated the descision of the requirements for distributing
> sarge, could the TC take a stance on the proposals presented?
>
> Well looking at that post some of the points were:
>
> | ... It would be a bad idea to write a long document `under the gun'. ...
>
> This pretty much pleads agains proposal E.
>
> | ... Any such grandfather resolution should probably delegate reasonably
> | wide discretion about scope and interpretation to the Release Manager,
> | the Project Leader, the Committee or some other similar person or body,
> | to ensure that the resolution is sufficient and we don't need another
> | GR. ...
>
> Well none of the proposals really seem to do this, except for maybe
> proposals C and E. All the others fall back to the previous (ambiguous)
> SC.
>
> Would it be correct to assume that only the passing of proposal C will
> allow for a speedy release of sarge if it were up to the TC?
What would perhaps be ideal, reading the above about a 'grandfather
clause', is proposal (F?) Further Discussion, then have a new ballot
with simply two options:
A) Grandfather clause granting wide SC override discretion to RM/TC,
probably limited to the next release.
B) Further discussion.
If, as it generally seems to be the case, the new SC, as amended, really
is what the voting constituents prefer, yet they would like to release
without further delays, this would be the "cleanest" approach surely?
No further, possibly ambiguous amendments. Release without further
delays. SC stands as ("desirably") amended. Perhaps I could go so far as
to say The Right Thing (TM)?
Of course as a self-proclaimed Free Software bigot, perhaps I shouldn't
really be suggesting this in the first place :/
Oh well, good luck,
Zen
Reply to: