On Mon, 17 Aug 2015, Sam Hartman wrote: > >>>>> "Don" == Don Armstrong <d...@debian.org> writes: > > Don> On Sun, 16 Aug 2015, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote: > >> What about "just" adding Keith's proposal to the ballot, and let > >> the Condorcet magic act? > > Don> This has sort of been my plan; I just have not had enough spare > Don> cycles in the past few weeks (grant deadlines) to have the time > Don> necessary to work through Keith's plan and shift it into a > Don> specific patch to policy. > > If you add Keith's proposal as well as an explanation of our technical > objection to what debian-policy came up with it, I might even vote for > it.
This is my plan. The proposal needs to be written up as a specific patch to policy, with a separate rationale, and then we can actually vote on it as a separate option in the ballot. I'm trying to find some spare cycles to work on this in the next two weeks, but if someone beats me to it, excellent. > If you were to add a recommendation to ballot option B that under > 6.1.5 we ask debian-policy to consider Keith's proposal, I'd prefer > that to the current text. If no one gets around to handling the above, that might be what we have to do. [...] > While we're not overturning anything in the sense of an override here, > I think we owe an explanation for our actions, and I feel really > strongly about that. Ideally the patch and its rationale should stand alone without the need for a separate text. But that said, if you disagree that the rationale is not sufficient once it exists, I'll either try to modify it or draft a separate text. -- Don Armstrong http://www.donarmstrong.com I don't care how poor and inefficient a little country is; they like to run their own business. I know men that would make my wife a better husband than I am; but, darn it, I'm not going to give her to 'em. -- The Best of Will Rogers
