Hi Charles, On 19/10/14 at 23:29 +0900, Charles Plessy wrote: > Le Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 05:31:28PM +0200, Matthias Urlichs a écrit : > > > > Charles Plessy: > > > This is why I am proposing this amendement, to say: “this GR was a bad idea, > > > please do not do it again”. > > > > > I would not regard it as an amendment, but as a separate alternative option > > on the ballot. If I were you, I'd add another paragraph, like > > > > >> Regarding the subject of this ballot, the Project affirms that the question > > >> has already been resolved and thus does not require a General Resolution. > > > > and then formally ask for seconds. > > Thanks again for the good suggestion. > > Regarding the terminology, in my understanding, alternative options on the same > ballot are amendments, even if they fully replace the original proposition. > > Anyway, whichever the name I call for seconds (or comments: if this proposed > amendment is considered harmful, let me know). > > Here is the text: > > --------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > The Debian project asks its members to be considerate when proposing General > Resolutions, as the GR process may be disruptive regardless of the outcome of > the vote. > > Regarding the subject of this ballot, the Project affirms that the question > has already been resolved and thus does not require a General Resolution. > > --------------------------------------------------------------------------- I think that it would be very helpful to describe how "the question has already been resolved". My understanding is that the various proposals add policy on something that isn't currently covered by the Debian Policy or by TC decisions. Alternatively, your resolution could state that the current de-facto policy of supporting both systemd and sysvinit (sometimes through systemd-shim) should be kept for Debian jessie, and that deciding on policy beyond jessie is premature at this point. Lucas
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature