On Sat, Apr 21, 2012 at 05:52:37PM +0200, Alexander Reichle-Schmehl wrote: > Hi!
> >There seems to be only two ways out of this: (1) have a GR, or (2) turn > >a blind eye on the Constitution recommended procedure, accepting we made > >a mistake (of which I'm ready to take the blame), and move on. While I > >still see the advantage of not doing a GR, I don't think they warrant > >doing (2) as that will set a pretty bad precedent. > Well, in theory you could also send a mail to d-d-a, announcing your > intention to publish the statement, and wait if someone proposes a > GR to override you. > But I agree, that 1 should be preferred over that, just mention it > for completeness ;) As a strict constitutionalist, I would feel compelled to propose a GR on principle, even though I also support having such a diversity statement. So I would much prefer that Stefano simply start a GR in favor of the diversity statement instead. He does have a leg up in that as DPL, he can propose the GR without waiting for seconds. :) -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/ slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
