On 23/10/14 at 07:52 +0100, Jonathan Dowland wrote: > Dear Lucas, > > On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 05:22:39PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > > I think that the current set of options would be a sensible ballot, and > > I'm not aware of any discussions to add another option, so I'm inclined > > to shorten the discussion period. > > I hope you consider the point raised in 20141017090800.ga3...@chew.redmars.org > before taking this action.
Oh, yes, sure. But is this point still valid? My perception is that the current set of amendments is good enough. But if you were planning to propose one yourself and haven't had time to do it yet, I am of course fine to postpone reducing the discussion period, or even not reduce it at all. It's just that I'm not aware of anyone planning to propose additional amendments, or additional modifications to the current amendments. However, I'd like to point out that there are good reasons to reduce the discussion period. There's currently a discussion in the TC about what to do during upgrades from wheezy to jessie (#765803). It was raised in <871tq189dh....@rover.gag.com> that it could be better to wait for the outcome of the present GR to vote on a TC resolution. And that TC resolution could have an impact on the release. Also, I think that everybody is quite tired of those discussions, and it would be better to be able to focus on preparing the release rather sooner than later. Finally, given that the voting period won't be reduced, it would still be possible to discuss the merits of each proposal during the beginning of the voting period, if needed. Lucas -- 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/20141023070742.ga26...@xanadu.blop.info