CFV-DFSG: Initial results

[Philip Hands <phil@hands.com>]

Hi,

As can be seen from the votes included below the breakdown is roughly:

  DFSG fine as it is:    5.5
  Boredom:               3.5
  DFSG too weak:         2
  Inflammatory ;-)       1

Now I expect that there is an element of self selection in these things,
that means that the pro-change folks were less tempted to express an opinion.

This is your chance to change that.  Unlike almost all other vote/opinion poll
methods, this one allows people to pipe up late, and still be counted.

Just send mail to cfv-dfsg-Insert-Opinion-Here@hands.com.

Cheers, Phil.

---

Here are the votes in the order they were received:

phil@hands.com
  cfv-dfsg-should-not-be-diluted

dark@xs4all.nl
  cfv-dfsg-ok-but-section-four-too-weak

rdm@test.legislate.com
  cfv-dfsg-i-have-not-seen-any-better-ideas-yet

salve@fnal.gov
  cfv-dsfg-too-weak

bruce@debian.org
  cfv-dsfg-has-been-decided-once-and-for-all

stevegr@starbase.neosoft.com
  cvf-dfsg-is-not-perfect-but-Im-tired-of-talking-about-it

brian@butterfly.ml.org
  cfv-dfsg-good-but-needs-clarification-for-newbies-and-\
    should-go-to-debian-policy-TELLME

igor@digicron.com
  cfv-dfsg-is-perfect-TELLME

[name withheld]
  cfv-dfsg-christoph-and-his-friends-should-leave-debian---\
    which-will-probably-raise-the-quality-of-the-distibution-too-SECRET

trd@murlibobo.cs.mu.oz.au
  cfv-dsfg-is-fine

astala@tnso13.tele.nokia.fi
  cfv-dsfg-is-good-but-wording-might-be-nicer

sanvila@unex.es
  cfv-dfsg-debate-should-be-postponed-since-we-have-many-other-things-to-do

---



--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org . 
Trouble?  e-mail to templin@bucknell.edu .