[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Proposal: General Resolution on Init Systems and systemd Facilities

>>>>> "Ian" == Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes:

    Ian> Sam Hartman writes ("Proposal: General Resolution on Init
    Ian> Systems and systemd Facilities"):
    >> Timeline: I think that two weeks for discussion of this GR seems
    >> about right based on what's happened in the last week.  The
    >> constitution allows the DPL to change the discussion period by up
    >> to a week.  The discussion period is normally reset by the
    >> proposer accepting any amendment or making a modification to the
    >> proposal.  If an amendment is accepted, I am likely to use that
    >> power such that the discussion period is the longer of two weeks
    >> from when the secretary sends mail to debian-devel-announce, or
    >> seven days past the time of the last amendment being accepted.
    >> In other words, if I accept an amendment in the next week, I'm
    >> likely to keep the total discussion period at two weeks.

To clarify, my understanding is that the discussion period started
November 16.
So, we're talking about a minimum discussion period expiring  on
November 30.

I assumed the secretary would interpret the constitution differently and
that only the proposer of the original resolution could accept
I seem to recall Manoj interpreted things that way back in the day.
So, at the time I wrote that text, I was under the mistaken belief that
I was the only one who could accept amendments.  (I'm glad the secretary
has interpreted things differently.)

My assumption is still that only me accepting amendments resets the
minimum discussion period.
If that's not how the secretary sees things then I don't understand this
process at all and will need to have a re-read of the constitution and a
re-think about things.
I'm not making a value judgment about what the constitution should say,
just a judgment about past practice and my reading of the constitution.

Another way to understand what I intended is that I will do what I can
to keep the minimum discussion period ending at November 30.

That said, I'm very open to the idea of delaying calling for a vote if
people are finalizing wording that has received sufficient seconds or
for whichthe following two conditions are true:

1) People have indicated a desire to second if certain issues are

2) It looks like there is a reasonable chance of resolving those issues

So, to be concrete.  Right now, your proposal has received enough
support that I think it's worth trying to resolve outstanding amendments
before calling for a vote.  (Although I also think we can probably do
that before November 30).  Right now, I don't think Dmitry's proposal
has received enough support that I would want to delay to resolve
amendments.  That could easily change in a week and a couple of days.


Reply to: