# 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.