Re: Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init systems
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Kurt Roeckx writes ("Re: Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init systems"):
> On Sun, Mar 02, 2014 at 10:56:20AM +0000, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > Matthew Vernon writes ("Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init systems"):
> > > I wish to propose the following general resolution, and hereby call
> > > for seconds. [...]
> > Seconded.
> This isn't counted since it's not signed.
My message was, in the words of Constitution 4.2.5, an
announcement on a publicly-readable electronic mailing list
designated by the Project Leader's Delegate(s)
(I assume that listmaster have designated debian-vote for this purpose.)
There is no constitutional requirement for these things to be signed.
But to avoid having to have this argument, I have signed this email.
FAOD I restate: I hereby sponsor Matthew's GR.
If you would like the constitutional power to require such statements
to be signed, or make other requirements about formalities, that would
require a constitutional change. I wouldn't be opposed to that. (It
would make it possible to impose a format requirement, for example, so
that these actions could be automatically tracked.) If you think this
is a good idea, it could perhaps be bundled into the set of procedural
constitution fixes under consideration by the TC.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----