On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 06:04:07PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> I hereby call for votes on my coupling proposal and the amendments
> that have been put.
> The options on the ballot are:
> L Software may not depend on a specific init system
> N No TC resolution on this question at this time
Briefly, mostly for my own notes:
* 2:1 supermajority for TC overrides should be abolished (seems
we are probably agreed on this - speak now if not)
* FD threshold needs to be >= always, not >. Requirement to get
>> 4/8 voting X > FD was exploitable and bad news.
* Possible minimum dis
Ian Jackson writes:
> * 2:1 supermajority for TC overrides should be abolished (seems
>we are probably agreed on this - speak now if not)
I'm fine with this.
> * FD threshold needs to be >= always, not >. Requirement to get
>>> 4/8 voting X > FD was exploitable and bad news.
There h
Bdale Garbee writes:
> Ian Jackson writes:
>> * Possible minimum discussion period for TC resolutions.
> I'd prefer this not change. The circumstances that led to my recent use
> of no-wait CFVs was extremely unusual, and in the past we've used this
> ability to quickly come to closure on iss
On Wed, 26 Feb 2014, Don Armstrong wrote:
> The next CTTE meeting is at date -d 'Thu Feb 27 18:00:00 UTC 2014' in
> #debian-ctte on irc.debian.org
#debian-ctte Meeting
Meeting started by dondelelcaro at 17:58:43 UTC. The full logs are
available at
http:/
Our next meeting was originally scheduled for
date -d 'Thu Mar 27 17:00:00 UTC 2014', but multiple people have
conflicts.
Instead, we suggested date -d 'Thu Mar 20 17:00:00 UTC 2014' in the most
recent IRC meeting. If this does not work for someone, please reply and
suggest an alternate time. [I
* Ian Jackson (ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk) [140227 19:27]:
> * 2:1 supermajority for TC overrides should be abolished (seems
>we are probably agreed on this - speak now if not)
I prefer if any decision to override the TC is statistically safe,
i.e. not just one vote above 50%. For the in
Ian Jackson writes:
> I hereby call for votes on my coupling proposal and the amendments
> that have been put.
With all 8 votes cast, this CFV on the init system coupling issue has
ended in a tie between options "L" and "N". Given my vote on this
issue, it should be no surprise that I use my ca
8 matches
Mail list logo
