Re: Reducing the discussion and the voting period to 1 week
On 23/10/14 at 07:52 +0100, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
> Dear Lucas,
>
> On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 05:22:39PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> > I think that the current set of options would be a sensible ballot, and
> > I'm not aware of any discussions to add another option, so I'm inclined
> > to shorten the discussion period.
>
> I hope you consider the point raised in 20141017090800.GA3135@chew.redmars.org
> before taking this action.
Oh, yes, sure. But is this point still valid? My perception is that the
current set of amendments is good enough. But if you were planning to
propose one yourself and haven't had time to do it yet, I am of course
fine to postpone reducing the discussion period, or even not reduce it
at all. It's just that I'm not aware of anyone planning to propose
additional amendments, or additional modifications to the current
amendments.
However, I'd like to point out that there are good reasons to reduce the
discussion period.
There's currently a discussion in the TC about what to do during
upgrades from wheezy to jessie (#765803). It was raised in
<871tq189dh.fsf@rover.gag.com> that it could be better to wait for
the outcome of the present GR to vote on a TC resolution. And that TC
resolution could have an impact on the release.
Also, I think that everybody is quite tired of those discussions, and it
would be better to be able to focus on preparing the release rather
sooner than later.
Finally, given that the voting period won't be reduced, it would still
be possible to discuss the merits of each proposal during the beginning
of the voting period, if needed.
Lucas
Reply to: