Apologies for not having followed up on this message yet. I got rather busy with non-Debian things for a bit.
To provide a status update, I think Kurt identified several significant issues and we need another revision. I hope to finish that soon, at least by next weekend if not sooner. There are several things that I think are fairly straightforward to fix. The open questions that I was hoping to get some further feedback on were: * Should we say that the proposers of ballot options need to provide the short summaries at the end of the discussion period, or should we specify that the Project Secretary writes them? * Is everyone okay with changing five days to seven days in the rule on when the Project Secretary needs to start a vote after the end of the discussion period? * Should we use a different term than "call for a vote" to describe the Project Secretary starting the vote? There are also a few wording proposals in the previous message to which this is a reply. Except for the one about how the Technical Committee selects someone to run a GR process, I intend to adopt those in the new version, so if anyone doesn't like them, please speak up. For the TC part, I plan on using Sam's proposed wording. -- Russ Allbery ([email protected]) <https://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
