Re: GR option text on ballots

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

Lucas Nussbaum writes ("Re: GR option text on ballots"):
> I'd like to propose:

I would like to reiterate my view that these summaries should be
positive, and written by the proponent of each version, so long as
they are not misleading.

IMO summary lines should certainly not be written by opponents of the
proposed option.  Please would you as Secretary confirm that you will
seek to use a summary text that both I (as proponent) and you are
happy with.

If think the Secretary should invite Lucas to come up with a snappy
and positive summary of his proposal.


If the Secretary feels we have to have a neutral rather than a
positive phrasing I would request that we use the following summary
line for my proposal:

  Packages may not require a specific init system

That is a straightforward abbreviation of the core text of the
proposal.  (`Packages' replaces `software' because that seems to be
the most common scenario in which the rule is engaged, and leads to a
more comprehensible summary.)  If there is room for a slightly longer
text then:

  Packages may not (in general) require a specific init system

is better because it acknowledges that there are exceptions.


> Ian's: make each package support all alternative init systems

This is actively misleading in a least four ways:

 * The difference between `all alternatives' and `at least one
   alternative';

 * The implication that this involves all packages (rather than the
   subset which need to interact with init systems);

 * The implication that there is work which needs to be done, when in
   fact what is required is that the support which currently does
   exist must not be removed.

 * And, the implication that this is a mandate for someone to do work,
   rather than a technical criterion.  Of course no-one is required to
   do any work.  Contributors are always free to fail to maintain
   their packages to the many and detailed standards required for
   inclusion in Debian.

I would be very displeased if the Secretary chooses to use a text for
my proposal which was suggested by my opponent, and which I think
contains coded criticisms of my proposal.


For the same reason I don't think it is appropriate for me to suggest
a summary of Lucas's version.


Thanks,
Ian.