Ian Jackson <ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes: > I'd appreciate a final round of review (especially by TC members and > the Secretary) at this stage. If that is broadly positive I intend to > propose these as TC resolutions shortly after Debconf.
> The files are: > informal-propose allow private discussion (const. change) I'm fine with this, although I'm mildly in favor of counterproductive instead of infeasible or unconstructive now that we've had some more discussion. I think the more general discussion of whether we need to say something stronger would be fine to have during the discussion period of the GR (and since I'm sure there will be comments there, I don't want to spend too much time "pre-discussing" it). > numberfix-propose fix A.1 numbering (const. change) Looks good here. > supermajority-propose fix overrule fencepost (const. change) I have a mild preference, following Anthony's comment, to say "if a supermajority of N:M" instead of "if a majority of N:M", but I'm still fine with this either way. > overrule-propose advice re overruling (advisory) I think this is fine to start the GR conversation. I expect there to be a lot of discussion. > amend-propose amendment procedure, to be appended to each Seems fine. Thanks for your work on this! -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-ctte-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87a9z4pfhu....@windlord.stanford.edu
