On Thu, Feb 06, 2014 at 06:53:56PM +0000, Ian Jackson wrote: > Kurt Roeckx writes ("Re: Bug#727708: Call for votes on init system > resolution"): > > On Thu, Feb 06, 2014 at 06:26:09PM +0000, Ian Jackson wrote: > > > If you agree with this reasoning then I'd be grateful if you'd advise > > > what form of words should be used to achieve the desired effect. The > > > desired effect is that: > > > > > > * A GR option containing a non-binding position statement, requiring > > > a 1:1 majority, can trigger: > > > > > > * Provisions in a TC resolution which is conditional on such a GR, > > > > > > * such that the TC declares in advance that the GR's views are to be > > > substituted for the TC's. > > > > I guess it should mention that the option in the GR should be a > > position statement (and should not try to override the CTTE). > > Yes. What did you think of my proposal earlier ? If you don't think > that has the right effect, please suggest something else.
Yes, I think that should be fine. > > That assumes that the text is actually a position statement. I'm > > not sure that I can interprete all texts as position statements. > > As always, I have to see the text first. > > If the text explicitly says that it is a non-binding position > statement issued under s4.1.5 of the Constitution, would that suffice ? Yes. Kurt -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org