On Wed, May 26, 2004 at 12:53:41AM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> IME people nearly always put FD ahead of the options they disagree
> with.
However, it's possible for people to think that two options
are acceptable, even though they have a distinct preference
for one over the other.
--
Raul
Manoj Srivastava writes ("Re: Our supermajority requirement has changed !"):
> Yes, there is a discrepancy between 6.1(4) and A.6(3). If it
> were possible to have 9 members of the tech ctte, then a 3.5:1 super
> majority would also be possible, but the ctte seems to ve restricted
> to 8
On Tue, 25 May 2004 23:10:59 +0100, Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> The plain language of the committee's power to overrule a developer,
> in 6.1(4), says `this requires a 3:1 majority'. However if one tech
> ctte member dissents the current wording of A.6(3) would _four_
> other ctte me
In the original constitution, which can be seen here:
http://www.debian.org/devel/constitution.1.0
in order to overrule a maintainer we need a 3:1 supermajority
including the chairman (because it counts as a tie). I think the need
for the chairman to agree in this case is a mistake.
In the `tidy
Well, now there are four of us who've replied so it seems we're not
going to be lacking in participants, and no-one has criticised my
draft, so I hereby formally propose the resolution below. If I don't
hear any objections I'll call for a vote in a few days.
1. The Technical Committe has conside
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ian Jackson) writes:
> As far as the committee goes, we've heard from Guy, Raul, and me. Are
> the rest of you reading ? What are your views ? Guy, do you have a
> reply to Raul's last point ?
Been reading along, but didn't have an immediate opinion on the matter.
> I've wr
On Thu, May 20, 2004 at 07:49:06PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Pascal Hakim writes ("Posting on the list [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Re: md5sum produces spurious ` -' in output]"):
> > Back in Feb 2003, this list was turned into a subscribers-only
> > list. This means that unless those people are subsc
Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Guy, do you have a reply to Raul's last point ?
My reservations were vague ones about making upstream incompatible
changes. I've convinced myself that this is no different from any
other bug. I agree with all of Ian's points.
Guy
8 matches
Mail list logo
