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

Re: Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init systems

On Sun, Mar 02, 2014 at 12:45:39PM +0000, Ian Jackson wrote:
> 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.

I think that under A.3.4 that I have the power to decide on the


Reply to: