On Mon, Nov 03, 2008 at 09:34:47AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> Le Mon, Nov 03, 2008 at 12:18:11AM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum a écrit :
> >
> > I'm fine with voting with only the current option on the ballot, but
> > that will probably translate in people abstaining because they don't
> > agree, neither with the only option, nor with FD (which is the de facto
> > "go ahead").
>
> I do not think that the only interpretation of a rejected GR is the
> contrary of its option(s). For instance, people can vote "Further
> Disucssion" because the text suggests that Joerg has the power to
> make the decisions he posted, despite they think that he has not.
Yes, but then you have a lot of "clashes" in the reasons why people
are voting Further Discussion. I don't see any particular problem with
adding clarifying ballots and I do see the benefit.
> This said, I still hope that Joerg could send a clarification that what he
> presented is not yet an official policy, and that he will follow consensus or
> propose changes through a GR. With this we could avoid the current vote.
Full ACK.
--
Stefano Zacchiroli -*- PhD in Computer Science \ PostDoc @ Univ. Paris 7
zack@{upsilon.cc,pps.jussieu.fr,debian.org} -<>- http://upsilon.cc/zack/
Dietro un grande uomo c'è sempre /oo\ All one has to do is hit the right
uno zaino -- A.Bergonzoni \__/ keys at the right time -- J.S.Bach
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature