Steve Langasek <vor...@debian.org> writes:
> On Sun, Aug 23, 2009 at 11:51:40AM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
>> On Sat, 22 Aug 2009, Steve Langasek wrote:
>> > I suggest the following resolution as a ballot option:
>
>> [...]
>
>> > Thoughts on this?
>
>> I think this is a more complete option that what I had proposed; I'd
>> like to see it replace my proposed option, unless someone else feels
>> that the more limited option is more ideal. (In which case, please
>> speak up.)
>
> Ok. Does anyone have any suggestions for improvement to this proposal, or
> are there any other options someone would like to see on the ballot?
>
> If there are no responses, I'll plan to call for a vote 72 hours from now.
>
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-ctte/2009/08/msg00079.html
I would like to added the following to the ballot:
0. decides to override the ftp team decision to remove the
ia32-libs-tools package from the archive, finding insufficient
technical justification to warrant its removal.
5. recommends that in cases where the continuing existance of a
package in the archive does not endanger archive operations,
installations or the Debian project that ftp-master communicates
objective, measurable, technical conditions that will cause a package
to be removed and allow the maintainer to fix the package within a
reasonable timeframe before enacting a removal.
Without 0 I have already lost before the vote even begins. There are
no technical reasons for ia32-libs-tools to not be in Debian so I can
never fix them and never get it back.
My vote would be 0 2 3 4 5 if I had a voice. As there were no reasons
to remove ia32-libs-tools voting 0 and 2 is not contradictory.
MfG
Goswin
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-ctte-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
