Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 01:50:37AM +0100, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
>>> b) Delaying a decision of a Delegate or the DPL [§4.2(2.2)],
>>> as well as resolutions against a shortening of discussion/voting
>>> period or to overwrite a TC decision [§4.2(2.3)] requires floor(Q)
>>> developers to sponsor the resolution.
>>> c) the definition of K gets erased from the constitution. [§4.2(7)]
>> what I'd like to add here is something in the lines of
>
>> d) If a resolution will affect an upcoming release which is already
>> frozen, the resolution needs twice the number of sponsors as defined
>> in a).
>
>> This should help to avoid that some random people try to stop a release
>> in the latest moment if there's not a really good reason to do so. If
>> we want Debian to be used in business ("enterprise" *gasp*)
>> installations, we should at least be able to tell people when we're
>> about to release, without having them to fear a delay for months or
>> years due to a GR.
>
> I disagree: Debian release when ready, not in time. Which is good!
>
> If anyone creates a vote close to (expected) release, then they have a
> good reason to do that. Which we should not suppress by designing our
> rules to favor releasing "in time".
If there's a good reason to create the GR I'm sure they'd find enough
sponsors. Realeasing in time becomes more and more important these days - so I
can't see anything wrong here.
--
Bernd Zeimetz Debian GNU/Linux Developer
GPG Fingerprint: 06C8 C9A2 EAAD E37E 5B2C BE93 067A AD04 C93B FF79
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
