Hi Neil, On 04/11/14 at 17:53 +0000, Neil McGovern wrote: > - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- > 57dd4d7c-3e92-428f-8ab7-10de5172589e > [ ] Choice 1: Packages may not (in general) require a specific init system > [ ] Choice 2: Support alternative init systems as much as possible > [ ] Choice 3: Packages may require specific init systems if maintainers decide > [ ] Choice 4: General Resolution is not required > [ ] Choice 5: Further Discussion > - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- I must say that I am quite surprised by you choice of summary for Choice 2. First, that's the only one not to include a verb. It could be understood as "Packages *must* support alternative init systems as much as possible", which is clearly misleading. Also "as much as possible" is not part of the amendment. Second, after asking for an accurate summary, I replied in <20141017202805.GA10561@xanadu.blop.info> (private mail to you+Ian, as was your initial query) with: "support for alternative init systems is desirable but not mandatory". If you disagreed with the suggestion, why didn't you say so since Oct 17th? If my suggestion is too long, you could have used any of the following, which are all shorter or the same size as the summary for Choice 3: - Support for alternative init systems is desirable, not mandatory - Maintainers are encouraged to support alternative init systems I think that it would be better to update the CfV. Also, it's a much more minor problem, but it seems that you missed my second for the fourth proposal in <20141022054027.GA30495@xanadu.blop.info>. Lucas
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature