Russ Allbery writes ("Bug#727708: Call for votes on init system resolution"): > To say explicitly to avoid making people read my mind: I think Kurt's > concerns can be dealt with by a separate vote if necessary, so while I > don't object to cancelling the vote for that, I'm also not sure it's > necessary.
I would prefer to deal with this in the same resolution, as I have already said. I'm sorry that I didn't make sure Kurt was properly involved in the drafting. > However, if Steve would like to cancel the vote to have more > time to draft his compromise, I'm happy to do so. For me, a desire to cancel the vote would follow directly from being upset that the vote had started. But this whole thread has demonstrated to me in many ways that what I think is obvious is far from uncontentious. > I therefore intend to change my vote to list FD first iff Steve does the > same, since I think it's up to him to decide whether he wants to stop, > rework, and start again, or just continue on since the vote has started > anyway. > > I'm open to being convinced that I have this backwards and should just > change my vote now. I think Steve's failure to rank FD first is probably a procedural error on his part. I've tried to catch him on IRC but not had a clear response yet. Or perhaps he feels it would be rude to rank FD first to try to vote down what he felt was a premature CFV. But as I have said I think that's exactly what FD is for. FD means precisely "further discussion". So, Steve, if that's what's holding you back please do change your vote. Ian. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-ctte-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/21234.58703.478811.515...@chiark.greenend.org.uk