Steve Langasek writes ("Bug#727708: init system coupling etc."):
> On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 09:37:50AM -0700, Bdale Garbee wrote:
> > That would be good, since I at least have sort of lost track of what you
> > think the ballot options will be at this point.
>
> Likewise, I've lost the thread of what has actually been proposed.
>
> So I don't think a 24 hour period between draft CfV and CfV is adequate
> here. There have been a lot of proposals discussed in this thread, and it's
> not at all clear which are stillborn and which people think warrant carrying
> forward.
I think this is in fact perfectly clear. But I am prepared to commit
to a further 24h extension if you promise that you will not ask for
even more time beyond that.
Note that there is no constitutional rule which prevents anyone from
proposing amendments right up to the CFV, and those amendments must
then appear on the CFV. So ensuring a minimum period between draft
CFV and actual CFV is not possible without admitting a potentially
indefinite delay to the actual CFV. Draft CFVs have no constitutional
status.
Ian.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
