Re: Proposal: General Resolution on Init Systems and systemd Facilities
Russ Allbery writes ("Re: Proposal: General Resolution on Init Systems and systemd Facilities"):
> (I also think this is a bug in the constitution; it means that a rejected
> but seconded amendment can go on the ballot immediately before the vote
> with no time for further discussion of that amendment, which seems
> obviously poor. But that being said, fixing the constitution, if
> appropriate, is a separate discussion.)
It would be really good if we could avoid this issue becoming
entangled in procedural disagreements.
To that end I think everyone involved, and particularly people like
Sam and me who have some kind of privileged role and might be able to
trigger constitutional clauses, should try to (i) exercise their
procedural rights consensually (whether those rights are disputed or
not) (ii) give explicit statements consenting to others' reasonable
procedural actions even when some or most readings of the constitution
wouldn't require it.
I certainly don't want to see this discussion drag on indefinitely.
But it is worth making sure everyone feels they (and their respective
communities) have been dealt with fairly, to avoid generating
bitterness which may last for years.
Ian Jackson <firstname.lastname@example.org> These opinions are my own.
If I emailed you from an address @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk, that is
a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.