>>>>> "Russ" == Russ Allbery <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes: Russ> Apologies for not having followed up on this message yet. I Russ> got rather busy with non-Debian things for a bit. Russ> To provide a status update, I think Kurt identified several Russ> significant issues and we need another revision. I hope to Russ> finish that soon, at least by next weekend if not sooner. Russ> There are several things that I think are fairly Russ> straightforward to fix. The open questions that I was hoping Russ> to get some further feedback on were: Russ> * Should we say that the proposers of ballot options need to Russ> provide the short summaries at the end of the discussion Russ> period, or should we specify that the Project Secretary writes Russ> them? We could leave that up to the project secretary. I.E. allow the secretary to establish policies and procedures and refine them over time. Something like "The project secretary may require summaries of ballot proposals and may revise provided summaries." I'd imagine that this is one of those things where different project secretaries may view things differently depending on how comfortable they are summarizing. I think all too often we specify more than we need to in the constitution. Russ> * Is everyone okay with changing five days to seven days in Russ> the rule on when the Project Secretary needs to start a vote Russ> after the end of the discussion period? I do not object. Russ> * Should we use a different term than "call for a vote" to Russ> describe the Project Secretary starting the vote? No, I'd prefer to keep call for a vote.
Description: PGP signature