Re: Draft ballot

[Kurt Roeckx <kurt@roeckx.be>]

On Thu, Dec 05, 2019 at 07:07:03PM +0000, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Kurt Roeckx writes ("Draft ballot"):
> > [   ] Choice 1: Focus on systemd
> > [   ] Choice 2: Systemd but we support exploring alternatives
> > [   ] Choice 3: Support for multiple init systems is Important
> > [   ] Choice 4: Support non-systemd systems, without blocking progress
> > [   ] Choice 5: Support for multiple init systems is Required
> > [   ] Choice 6: Support portability and multiple implementations
> > [   ] Choice 7: Further Discussion
> 
> Obviously this is the draft before G+D.  I had a question, though:
> 
> May we reorder this when we send in our ballots, for example:
> 
> > [ 1  ] Choice 7: Further Discussion
> > [ 2  ] Choice 5: Support for multiple init systems is Required
> > [ 3  ] Choice 3: Support for multiple init systems is Important
> > [ 4  ] Choice 2: Systemd but we support exploring alternatives
> > [ 5  ] Choice 6: Support portability and multiple implementations
> > [ 6  ] Choice 4: Support non-systemd systems, without blocking progress
> > [ 7  ] Choice 1: Focus on systemd
> 
> supposedly from some mad person who really likes prime-numbered
> options, and therefore ranks FD first because 7 is the biggest prime.
> 
> If this is supported it makes voting a lot less confusing.  I just
> wanted to check that this ballot will be interpreted the "obvious"
> way.
> 
> If it is not supported, will it at least be detected ?

As far as I know, devotee checks the text. But I have no idea if
it supports resorting. If you want to know, I suggest you just
look at the source.


Kurt