--- /dev/null
+# 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.