Lucas Nussbaum writes ("Re: Call for Votes: General Resolution: Init system
coupling"):
> Second, after asking for an accurate summary, I replied in
> <[email protected]> (private mail to you+Ian, as
> was your initial query) with: "support for alternative init systems is
> desirable but not mandatory". If you disagreed with the suggestion, why
> didn't you say so since Oct 17th?
I concur with Lucas's comments.
> If my suggestion is too long, you could have used any of the following,
> which are all shorter or the same size as the summary for Choice 3:
> - Support for alternative init systems is desirable, not mandatory
> - Maintainers are encouraged to support alternative init systems
>
> I think that it would be better to update the CfV.
I agree.
I think this is still possible. It's a shame that this slightly odd
pre-CFV (CFV posted before voting period opens) wasn't explicitly a
draft, and posted only to -vote.
Sorry,
Ian.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
Archive:
https://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
