Re: GR option text on ballots
On Sun, Oct 19, 2014 at 03:18:52PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> 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.
>
A quick look through previous ballots seems (to me at least) to have
neutral statements there, rather than positive ones, so I'd prefer these
if possible.
> 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.
>
That would indeed be my aim, though I reserve my right to make a final
decision should that not be possible. Obviously, with what is
potentially quite a contentious vote, I'd like to avoid that, hence this
mail thread :)
> 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 (in general) require a specific init system
>
That sounds fine to me.
> > Ian's: make each package support all alternative init systems
>
> This is actively misleading in a least four ways:
>
Yup, I wouldn't count that as neutral either. How about:
Packages should continue to run under sysvinit unless technically
unfeasible
or
Packages may require a specific init system if technically required
?
> 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.
I'm not sure why you would assume that this is a possibility to be
honest.
Neil
Reply to: