Move 841294 to resolved_issues

diff --git a/841294_global/draft b/841294_global/draft
deleted file mode 100644 (file)
index 28be827..0000000
--- a/841294_global/draft
+++ /dev/null
@@ -1,62 +0,0 @@
-# Background
-
-* In #841294, the Technical Committee was asked to overrule the
-  maintainer of the 'global' package to get a new upstream version
-  packaged.
-* As a matter of fact, at the time #841294 was filed, the 'global'
-  package's latest upload to unstable had happened in October 2010,
-  despite several requests for newer 'global' upstream releases and
-  bugreports.
-* The discussion, involving various people ranging from bugreporters,
-  Debian contributors, the 'global' maintainer, and some TC members, has
-  clarified two lines of argumentation around the maintenance of the
-  'global' package':
-   - global is fine as it is, version numbers are no silver-bullet, and
-     there are severe problems in the new upstream versions, that are
-     being discussed with upstream.  New features could always be
-     backported to the Debian version if worthwhile bugs were reported.
-   - there's a rightful expectation to get new upstream versions, even if
-     they introduce regressions or functionality losses. No amount of
-     upstream problems justify holding new versions back over multiple
-     release cycles.
-
-# Rationale
-
-* Our Social Contract's "We don't hide problems" implies that
-  maintainers go through reasonable effort to make their packages'
-  problems visible; and the usual way is to use the Debian bug tracker.
-  It also implies reporting upstream flaws to upstream, ideally in public.
-  Adding references to the BTS would avoid the impression that nothing had
-  been done.
-* Integrating recent versions of upstream software is a maintainers'
-  duty, as Debian is a primarily a software distribution; distributions
-  exist to facilitate users' access to upstream software. Uploading recent
-  versions and making them available to Debian users on a somewhat regular
-  basis is our way to find, address and correct problems brought in by new
-  upstream releases. The 'experimental' suite exists explicitly for the
-  purpose of testing software not immediately suitable for release towards
-  future stable releases.
-* If the maintainer decides that our users will be best served by not
-  upgrading, this should be explicitly stated.  The README.Debian file
-  of the package would be a good place to do this, as well as in response
-  to bugs requesting upgrades.
-* The argument that features could easily be backported would carry
-  significantly more weight if there was evidence of patches for past
-  bugs being acted upon in a timely manner.
-
-# Ballot
-
-- Option A - Reaffirm Ron Lee as 'global' maintainer (§6.1.2)
-
-- Option B - Declare Wookey as 'global' maintainer (§6.1.2)
-
-- Option C - Decline to rule, consider case closed
-
-- Option FD - Further discussion
-
-# Closing words
-
-We invite all interested parties to contribute in good faith for the
-best possible 'global' package. Filing bugs with appropriate severities
-is every user's duty, and it is important that those who understand the
-package best continue to provide their best inputs.

diff --git a/resolved_issues/841294_global/draft b/resolved_issues/841294_global/draft
new file mode 100644 (file)
index 0000000..28be827
--- /dev/null
+++ b/resolved_issues/841294_global/draft
@@ -0,0 +1,62 @@
+# Background
+
+* In #841294, the Technical Committee was asked to overrule the
+  maintainer of the 'global' package to get a new upstream version
+  packaged.
+* As a matter of fact, at the time #841294 was filed, the 'global'
+  package's latest upload to unstable had happened in October 2010,
+  despite several requests for newer 'global' upstream releases and
+  bugreports.
+* The discussion, involving various people ranging from bugreporters,
+  Debian contributors, the 'global' maintainer, and some TC members, has
+  clarified two lines of argumentation around the maintenance of the
+  'global' package':
+   - global is fine as it is, version numbers are no silver-bullet, and
+     there are severe problems in the new upstream versions, that are
+     being discussed with upstream.  New features could always be
+     backported to the Debian version if worthwhile bugs were reported.
+   - there's a rightful expectation to get new upstream versions, even if
+     they introduce regressions or functionality losses. No amount of
+     upstream problems justify holding new versions back over multiple
+     release cycles.
+
+# Rationale
+
+* Our Social Contract's "We don't hide problems" implies that
+  maintainers go through reasonable effort to make their packages'
+  problems visible; and the usual way is to use the Debian bug tracker.
+  It also implies reporting upstream flaws to upstream, ideally in public.
+  Adding references to the BTS would avoid the impression that nothing had
+  been done.
+* Integrating recent versions of upstream software is a maintainers'
+  duty, as Debian is a primarily a software distribution; distributions
+  exist to facilitate users' access to upstream software. Uploading recent
+  versions and making them available to Debian users on a somewhat regular
+  basis is our way to find, address and correct problems brought in by new
+  upstream releases. The 'experimental' suite exists explicitly for the
+  purpose of testing software not immediately suitable for release towards
+  future stable releases.
+* If the maintainer decides that our users will be best served by not
+  upgrading, this should be explicitly stated.  The README.Debian file
+  of the package would be a good place to do this, as well as in response
+  to bugs requesting upgrades.
+* The argument that features could easily be backported would carry
+  significantly more weight if there was evidence of patches for past
+  bugs being acted upon in a timely manner.
+
+# Ballot
+
+- Option A - Reaffirm Ron Lee as 'global' maintainer (§6.1.2)
+
+- Option B - Declare Wookey as 'global' maintainer (§6.1.2)
+
+- Option C - Decline to rule, consider case closed
+
+- Option FD - Further discussion
+
+# Closing words
+
+We invite all interested parties to contribute in good faith for the
+best possible 'global' package. Filing bugs with appropriate severities
+is every user's duty, and it is important that those who understand the
+package best continue to provide their best inputs.