ok, I think we should try to vote on this one: * Ian Jackson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [071127 21:25]: > So I hereby formally propose the set of resolutions and (unaccepted) > amendments implied by this DRAFT BALLOT: > > -8<- > > [Option D:] > (1) The existing libconfig in Debian may retain its name. > [Options X and N:] > (1) The existing libconfig in Debian must be renamed or removed. > > [Option N:] > (2) The newer library may use the name libconfig. > [Options X and D:] > (2) The newer library may not use the name libconfig. > > [All options:] > (3) A maintainer who is refused the use of the name > `libconfig' is invited to suggest one or more new > name(s), within 14 days of this resolution. > (4) If after that no member of the TC objects to a name within 7 > days (counted from the maintainer's suggestion), then the > package is entitled to the name. > (5) Even if a TC member objects, if the TC does not pass > a resolution vetoing the new name within 28 days, the > package is likewise entitled to the new name. > (6) This process applies to each package rejected the use > of the name `libconfig' by (1) and/or (2) above; it > applies to library names, filenames, package names, and all > similar names and identifiers. > (7) Suggestions and objections are to be sent to this bug. > > [ ] X: neither package gets to use the name `libconfig' > [ ] D: existing Debian package gets to keep the name `libconfig' > [ ] N: newer C++ library gets to use `libconfig' > [ ] F: further discussion > > -8<- > > I intend to call for a vote soon after we appear to have a working > committee list.
Any reason to not call on this? Cheers, Andi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]