On Tue, Dec 02, 2014 at 01:11:19PM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > How would you implement that? By expliciting making the DPL the > tie-breaking entity in that case, or by implicitely falling back to > 5.1.4 "Make any decision for whom noone else has responsibility."? I had in mind to explicitly state that the DPL will break ties. But I neither have a text ready that implements that, nor I have seen proposals by others that do that. I didn't think of §5.1.4, but I agree that that would be a nice way out of over-specification. It'd be wise to run that idea through the current secretary before counting on it, though. > If you make it explicit, it would be better to clarify if the DPL who > makes the decision is the DPL on January 1st, or on the following > December 31st. Which might result on more verbosity that the current > version, heh :-) Good point. Cheers. -- Stefano Zacchiroli . . . . . . . zack@upsilon.cc . . . . o . . . o . o Maître de conférences . . . . . http://upsilon.cc/zack . . . o . . . o o Former Debian Project Leader . . @zack on identi.ca . . o o o . . . o . « the first rule of tautology club is the first rule of tautology club »
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature