>>>>> "Wouter" == Wouter Verhelst <w...@uter.be> writes:
Wouter> On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 07:56:03AM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote:
>> >>>>> "Wouter" == Wouter Verhelst <wou...@debian.org> writes:
>>
>>
Wouter> So, I'm with Guillem on this one.
>>
>>
Wouter> But _forbidding_ maintainers who want to from shipping a
Wouter> second file, if that somehow makes the experience of menu
Wouter> users better than what the fdo menu would have given them?
Wouter> Sorry, but that seems petty and silly.
>>
>> OK. Then why don't you build consensus behind a patch to do
>> that? The TC's decision can be changed by the normal policy
>> process. If you can get people to agree with a proposal that
>> permits both ..desktop and .menu files then you can replace the
>> TC decision.
Wouter> Per ยง4.1.4, Only through a 2:1 supermajority
Wouter> GR. Alternatively, it could also by replaced by the TC
Wouter> voting a second time on the subject, changing or clarifying
Wouter> its original decision (an outcome I would favour, but hey,
Wouter> I'm not a member of the TC).
Normally that would be true.
However, the TC included the following language in its decision:
6. Further modifications to the menu policy are allowed using the
normal policy modification process.
My understanding is that Keith, Don and I at least intended that
language to allow the policy process to change or replace our decision.
I've run into three people now who did not find that clear. If the
policy editors asked us to clarify that part of the decision I would
support doing so. If the policy editors find that language clear enough
that they would feel comfortable merging a proposal that went against
the TC decision if it got enough seconds, etc, then I would find the
current language sufficient.
