On Sat Mar 14 12:14, Luk Claes wrote: > I think the reason there were no comments is just because you tried to > cover the whole field, I would rather take one point at a time. Sure, please do follow up with separate emails if you prefer. > > I also believe that the secretary should have the power to refuse to run > > a ballot option (by delaying the vote as appropriate) if he believes > > that it contradicts a FD but the ballot option itself does not > > explicitly claim to or otherwise resolve this problem. > > I don't see what this power to refuse would by us other than getting a > similar situation we had with the previous Secretary? I would rather > give the Secretary the power to delay a ballot for a limited amount of > time to actively try to clarify the ambiguity. No, Manoj believed (correctly or no) that he should mark them as super-majority if he thought they contradicted an FD, which the people who posted them disagreed with. I'm saying that the secretary can delay (possibly indefinitely) such a vote until it's made explicit. (I think we actually agree about both of these issues) > If a known DFSG issue is in sid, that means there is no problem with > distributing it (or the FTP Team is not acting). By the way if the > Release Team would ignore DFSG issues, one would not find a Release Team > action that shows this fact. Tagging them <release>-ignore, is not > ignoring the bugs, but telling our developers that we don't think the > issue should delay the release. Yes, this is what I think and tried to say in my previous mail. > > WRT the other issues, I'm happy with the seconding and supermajority > > options as they are, so won't be proposing we change them. > > So is Dato leading the discussion for these other options? Anyone who wants to change them. I tried starting off that discussion, but noone followed up. I'm not about to propose running a vote to keep them as they are... Matt -- Matthew Johnson
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature