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

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


Il giorno dom, 19/10/2014 alle 14.59 +0100, Ian Jackson ha scritto:
> 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.



Alessio Treglia          | www.alessiotreglia.com
Debian Developer         |     alessio@debian.org
Ubuntu Core Developer    |  quadrispro@ubuntu.com
0416 0004 A827 6E40 BB98 90FB E8A4 8AE5 311D 765A

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Reply to: