Re: Proposal: General Resolution on Init Systems and systemd Facilities
On Wed, Nov 20, 2019 at 09:58:51AM -0500, Sam Hartman wrote:
> >>>>> "Ian" == Ian Jackson <email@example.com> 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.
I always struggle with trying to understand that part, but my
current interpretation is different. The page shows the discussion
perriod starting at the 19th, which is when Ian's proposal got