Bug#717076: libjpeg draft resolution

Ondřej Surý writes (Bug#717076: libjpeg draft resolution): I would like to kindly ask if there's anything the rest of us can do to move this forward, so we have a time for a transition before next freeze. This was stalled because of an unfortunate interaction with the Project Secretary. I

Bug#717076: libjpeg draft resolution

On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 11:39:21PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote: This was stalled because of an unfortunate interaction with the Project Secretary. I think we should press ahead with our resolution. I have adapted Colin's resolution text. I have: - specified that the transition plan should

Bug#681419: Alternative dependencies on non-free packages in main: counterargument

Steve Langasek writes (Bug#681419: Alternative dependencies on non-free packages in main: counterargument): Sorry for the delays in writing this up. ... I believe the *spirit* of the policy requirement is twofold: I won't repeat myself too much, but as I have said I think there is a third

Bug#636783: supermajority bug

The fix to the constitutional supermajority bug has been delayed rather. Sorry about that. I have drafted what I think is an implementation of our conclusions here and in the TC. Opinions welcome. Thanks, Ian. - GENERAL RESOLUTION STARTS - Constitutional Amendment: TC

Bug#636783: TC process GRs

We have accumulated the following GR proposals, mostly to do with TC matters: * Fix the supermajority bug. Status: draft text on -vote just sent. * Change the committee size to an odd number to minimise use of the casting vote in highly contested situations. Status: under discussion;

Bug#746715: Init system fallout draft resolution

Here is the resolution text that I think we agreed at the last meeting. I formally propose this text: The issue of init system support recently came to the Technical Committee's attention again.[1] For the record, the TC expects maintainers to continue to support the multiple

Bug#636783: supermajority bug

Russ Allbery writes (Bug#636783: supermajority bug): Ian Jackson ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk writes: The fix to the constitutional supermajority bug has been delayed rather. Sorry about that. I have drafted what I think is an implementation of our conclusions here and in the TC.

Bug#636783: minimum discussion period

I would like to present an improved proposal for a minimum TC discussionn period, which will allow the committee to move quickly when there is consensus (at least, procedural consensus) within the committee: * Constitution 6.3(1), delete - There is no minimum discussion period; and