Hi, Thanks for this.
1. While the former "should" is guarded by "requires", I think the latter can be read as a recommendation. I therefore propose replacing it with "must" to make the override more obvious. 2. While option B reads fine to me, option A is a little confusing to me due to the combination of the naming requirement with the mentioning of the conflict. Given the rename.ul name, there seems to be no reason to cause a conflict at all and we can simply require that. As such I think the options should be fully separated.
I think I would generally like TC resolutions to be "natural English to be interpreted pragmatically, particularly in light of the rationale" rather than bullet-proof legalese. Now is not the time to die on this particular hill, though :-)
===Begin Resolution A' The Technical Committee overrides the util-linux maintainer, and requires that util-linux's rename should be shipped as /usr/bin/rename.ul in a binary package built from src:util-linux. The package containing rename.ul must not conflict with the rename package nor divert /usr/bin/rename. ===End Resolution A' ===Begin Resolution B' The Technical Committee overrides the util-linux maintainer, and requires that util-linux's rename should be shipped in a binary package built from src:util-linux. If this package Conflicts with the rename package, then it must not contain any other binaries. ===End Resolution B'
I hereby modify my options A and B to replace them with the contents of A' and B' thus.
[I'll do the necessary C&P when calling for a vote on the ballot] Thanks, Matthew