On 22/05/14 at 10:14 -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 03:56:26PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > We have had some discussion about this. No-one seems to have objected
> > to the suggestion that the DPL, rather than the TC chairman, should
> > have a casting vote in TC decisions
#debian-ctte Meeting
Meeting started by dondelelcaro at 16:58:06 UTC. The full logs are
available at
http://meetbot.debian.net/debian-ctte/2014/debian-ctte.2014-05-22-16.58.log.html
.
Meeting summary
---
* Who is here? (dondelelcaro, 16:58
On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 03:56:26PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> We have had some discussion about this. No-one seems to have objected
> to the suggestion that the DPL, rather than the TC chairman, should
> have a casting vote in TC decisions.
> I'm therefore intending to roll this up into my TC GR
Ian Jackson wrote:
> Ian Jackson writes ("Bug#746715: the foreseeable outcome of the TC vote on
> init systems"):
> > I do think there is still something for the TC to do here. As Andi
> > writes, the TC failed to clarify that we expect people to continue to
> > support multiple init systems. Ev
]] Ian Jackson
> We have had some discussion about this. No-one seems to have objected
> to the suggestion that the DPL, rather than the TC chairman, should
> have a casting vote in TC decisions.
I think it's a bad idea. The CTTE is a technical body. The DPL is a
political leader. Having pol
I have concluded that it is not going to be feasible for me to find a
wording for an advisory GR which will achieve my objectives.
I'm therefore dropping it from my personal todo list. I have removed
it from the TC git repo. If someone else wants to pick it up, they'd
have my support.
Thanks,
I
We have discussed having a minimum discussion period for TC
resolutions.
I still think this is necessary. I think 72h is about right.
Ian.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-ctte-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive:
h
Ian Jackson writes ("Bug#746715: the foreseeable outcome of the TC vote on init
systems"):
> I do think there is still something for the TC to do here. As Andi
> writes, the TC failed to clarify that we expect people to continue to
> support multiple init systems. Evidently this was a mistake.
We have had some discussion about this. No-one seems to have objected
to the suggestion that the DPL, rather than the TC chairman, should
have a casting vote in TC decisions.
I'm therefore intending to roll this up into my TC GR(s).
Ian.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-ctte-requ...@lists.d
We discussed this on -project. I have been convinced that my previous
approach was wrong. I now think that we should do as follows:
* Move the "required majority ratio" test from A.6(3) to
the very end, after A.6(8).
* Change the test > to >=.
* The consequence of not meeting the majorit
Don Armstrong writes ("Next CTTE Meeting is date -d 'Thu May 22 17:00:00 UTC
2014' (under 22 hours from now)"):
> The next CTTE meeting is at
>
> date -d'Thu May 22 17:00:00 UTC 2014'
>
> in #debian-ctte on irc.debian.org (OFTC).
>
> The current agenda is in the git repository, and is reprodu
I looked through this thread and found that I hadn't proposed anything
resembling a concrete resolution. I would like to do that now:
Context
1. A dispute about the status of menu systems in Debian, and the
contents of policy, has been referred to the Committee.
2. There are currentl
]] Don Armstrong
> #topic #733452 init system readiness protocol
This was closed by Ian, so why is it on the agenda?
--
Tollef Fog Heen
UNIX is user friendly, it's just picky about who its friends are
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-ctte-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubs
13 matches
Mail list logo
