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

Re: Constitutional issues in the wake of Lenny

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...


Matthew Johnson

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: