On Sun, Oct 19, 2014 at 03:18:52PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote: > 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. >
A quick look through previous ballots seems (to me at least) to have neutral statements there, rather than positive ones, so I'd prefer these if possible. > 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. > That would indeed be my aim, though I reserve my right to make a final decision should that not be possible. Obviously, with what is potentially quite a contentious vote, I'd like to avoid that, hence this mail thread :) > 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 (in general) require a specific init system > That sounds fine to me. > > Ian's: make each package support all alternative init systems > > This is actively misleading in a least four ways: > Yup, I wouldn't count that as neutral either. How about: Packages should continue to run under sysvinit unless technically unfeasible or Packages may require a specific init system if technically required ? > 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. I'm not sure why you would assume that this is a possibility to be honest. Neil -- 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/20141020111714.ga18...@halon.org.uk