Amendment (Re: Re-Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init systems)

[Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

(CC secretary@ to avoid this getting overlooked in the mail flood.)

I hereby formally propose the amendment below (Constitution A.1(1)
`directly by proposer'), and, then, immediately accept it (A.1(2)).
This resets the minimum discussion period (A.2(4)).

For the avoidance of any doubt, I currently intend to not accept any
further amendments.  That means that the minimum discussion period
will not be extended any further (unless the DPL intervenes).  I
currently intend to call for a vote when the minimum discussion period
elapses, 2 weeks from now.


The amendment is in two parts:

I. In section 2, `Loose coupling of init systems', in the text
   `may not require a specific init system', replace `a' by `one':

   - In general, software may not require a specific init system to be
   + In general, software may not require one specific init system to be

   Explanation: Some people seem to have understood the previous text
   as "must work with *all* init systems".  I want to clarify that we
   just mean that software should not be tied to one specific init
   system.

II. Insert new numbered section:

   + 3. As far as we are aware there are currently (17th of October) no
   +    bugs in jessie which would be declared RC by this GR.
   +
   +    Given the late passage of this resolution, we expect that any
   +    intractable bugs which are RC by virtue only of this resolution
   +    would be tagged by the release team as `jessie-ignore'.
   +
   +    So this proposal is not thought to add blockers to the jessie
   +    release.

   And, renumber the already-existing section 3 to be section 4:

   - 3. Notes and rubric
   + 3. Notes and rubric

   Explanation: It has become clear from the discussion that it is
   necessary to explicitly explain the intended effect for jessie.

   Comment: The new section 3 does not need any powers of the
   Technical Committee - indeed, it is purely informational and
   advisory.  So it is not part of the amendment's to the TC's
   resolution of the 11th of February.


Thanks,
Ian.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)

iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJUQ8OQAAoJEOPjOSNItQ05My8H/0LczpoZ+A2tDzrcdPgHv/yG
qb0o62lLn/f9heO7+vQ1zNjVsyp0JlsiXSk3TrekKOuWCDiKz9ODtnpFrNefKtg8
iKdrcCvLVQECQZmv93FyxGkinu5X+TPe5fB4R3AsW14lVCYy8nztwArlRiPicFmC
/x2ThWpb5AW3UTgwgpxCAaUllUypzCn3N+D3xsstmmrkXDa/xxxyj5xeOwWMIPe3
AD75cPj/RRNczGmoXsH8q6T2tNqiM02x9tRCEiOnG8QNYGlXU/OqtIclgtlcUUWj
8Hl1aOURogRNJyJur1dbyzCHgCa7Czzt00j0v7TO+7cIcBhIiXQcub/atCN9I44=
=WwRe
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----