On Thu, Dec 05, 2019 at 07:07:03PM +0000, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Kurt Roeckx writes ("Draft ballot"):
> > [ ] Choice 1: Focus on systemd
> > [ ] Choice 2: Systemd but we support exploring alternatives
> > [ ] Choice 3: Support for multiple init systems is Important
> > [ ] Choice 4: Support non-systemd systems, without blocking progress
> > [ ] Choice 5: Support for multiple init systems is Required
> > [ ] Choice 6: Support portability and multiple implementations
> > [ ] Choice 7: Further Discussion
>
> Obviously this is the draft before G+D. I had a question, though:
>
> May we reorder this when we send in our ballots, for example:
>
> > [ 1 ] Choice 7: Further Discussion
> > [ 2 ] Choice 5: Support for multiple init systems is Required
> > [ 3 ] Choice 3: Support for multiple init systems is Important
> > [ 4 ] Choice 2: Systemd but we support exploring alternatives
> > [ 5 ] Choice 6: Support portability and multiple implementations
> > [ 6 ] Choice 4: Support non-systemd systems, without blocking progress
> > [ 7 ] Choice 1: Focus on systemd
>
> supposedly from some mad person who really likes prime-numbered
> options, and therefore ranks FD first because 7 is the biggest prime.
>
> If this is supported it makes voting a lot less confusing. I just
> wanted to check that this ballot will be interpreted the "obvious"
> way.
>
> If it is not supported, will it at least be detected ?
As far as I know, devotee checks the text. But I have no idea if
it supports resorting. If you want to know, I suggest you just
look at the source.
Kurt
