On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 12:13:25PM +0000, Robert Millan wrote: > On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 08:54:17AM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: > > > > Let me observe that the fact that "several people here think" is not > > authoritative. > > > > That said, I disagree with point (ii) of your interpretation: > > > > > i Do we require source for firmware in main: Yes > > > ii Do we allow the Release Team to ignore SC violation bugs: No > > > iii What do we do for Lenny: Wait > > > iV Do we modify foundation documents: No > > > v Do we override foundation documents No > > > > it should rather be "Yes": > > Instead of having a long, useless discussion on what "Further discussion" > means, would it be possible to remove that option? > > Correct me if I am wrong, but I think for any interpretation of what "Further > Discussion" would mean in this vote, there's an explicit option in the ballot. Further discussion means none of the ballot options seems right to me, I prefer we discuss this again. IOW it's the statu quo, it solves nothing, it means "please draft a new ballot". I see no problem with such a meaning, it's always what it has meant. -- ·O· Pierre Habouzit ··O madcoder@debian.org OOO http://www.madism.org
Attachment:
pgpJzSFq_fjc1.pgp
Description: PGP signature