I would like to present an improved proposal for a minimum TC
discussionn period, which will allow the committee to move quickly
when there is consensus (at least, procedural consensus) within the
committee:
* Constitution 6.3(1), delete
- There is no minimum discussion period;
and repla
Russ Allbery writes ("Bug#636783: supermajority bug"):
> Ian Jackson writes:
> > The fix to the constitutional supermajority bug has been delayed
> > rather. Sorry about that. I have drafted what I think is an
> > implementation of our conclusions here and in the TC.
>
> > Opinions welcome.
>
Here is the resolution text that I think we agreed at the last
meeting. I formally propose this text:
The issue of init system support recently came to the Technical
Committee's attention again.[1]
For the record, the TC expects maintainers to continue to support
the multiple ava
Ian Jackson writes:
> The fix to the constitutional supermajority bug has been delayed
> rather. Sorry about that. I have drafted what I think is an
> implementation of our conclusions here and in the TC.
> Opinions welcome.
I haven't reviewed the wording in detail, but the general discussion
We have accumulated the following GR proposals, mostly to do with TC
matters:
* Fix the supermajority bug. Status: draft text on -vote just sent.
* Change the committee size to an odd number to minimise use of the
casting vote in highly contested situations. Status: under
discussion; te
The fix to the constitutional supermajority bug has been delayed
rather. Sorry about that. I have drafted what I think is an
implementation of our conclusions here and in the TC.
Opinions welcome.
Thanks,
Ian.
- GENERAL RESOLUTION STARTS -
Constitutional Amendment: TC Supermajor
Steve Langasek writes ("Bug#681419: Alternative dependencies on non-free
packages in main: counterargument"):
> Sorry for the delays in writing this up.
...
> I believe the *spirit* of the policy requirement is twofold:
I won't repeat myself too much, but as I have said I think there is a
third i
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 11:39:21PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> This was stalled because of an unfortunate interaction with the
> Project Secretary. I think we should press ahead with our resolution.
>
> I have adapted Colin's resolution text. I have:
> - specified that the transition plan shoul
Ondřej Surý writes ("Bug#717076: libjpeg draft resolution"):
> I would like to kindly ask if there's anything the rest of us can do
> to move this forward, so we have a time for a transition before
> next freeze.
This was stalled because of an unfortunate interaction with the
Project Secretary.
9 matches
Mail list logo
