Lucas Nussbaum writes ("Re: GR option text on ballots"): > I'd like to propose:
I would like to reiterate my view that these summaries should be positive, and written by the proponent of each version, so long as they are not misleading. IMO summary lines should certainly not be written by opponents of the proposed option. Please would you as Secretary confirm that you will seek to use a summary text that both I (as proponent) and you are happy with. If think the Secretary should invite Lucas to come up with a snappy and positive summary of his proposal. If the Secretary feels we have to have a neutral rather than a positive phrasing I would request that we use the following summary line for my proposal: Packages may not require a specific init system That is a straightforward abbreviation of the core text of the proposal. (`Packages' replaces `software' because that seems to be the most common scenario in which the rule is engaged, and leads to a more comprehensible summary.) If there is room for a slightly longer text then: Packages may not (in general) require a specific init system is better because it acknowledges that there are exceptions. > Ian's: make each package support all alternative init systems This is actively misleading in a least four ways: * The difference between `all alternatives' and `at least one alternative'; * The implication that this involves all packages (rather than the subset which need to interact with init systems); * The implication that there is work which needs to be done, when in fact what is required is that the support which currently does exist must not be removed. * And, the implication that this is a mandate for someone to do work, rather than a technical criterion. Of course no-one is required to do any work. Contributors are always free to fail to maintain their packages to the many and detailed standards required for inclusion in Debian. I would be very displeased if the Secretary chooses to use a text for my proposal which was suggested by my opponent, and which I think contains coded criticisms of my proposal. For the same reason I don't think it is appropriate for me to suggest a summary of Lucas's version. Thanks, Ian. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/21571.51276.966837.579...@chiark.greenend.org.uk