Re: On the firmwares/Lenny vote
Adeodato Simó <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>> I explicitly did not include a ballot suggestion in my post, so please
>> don't put words in my mouth :)
> Sorry, honest mistake. I intended to put a "paraphrased" laben on those
> brackets, but I forgot, I'm sorry.
No problem, but you got your "paraphrasing" wrong, too. I did not
write the "sensible" options needed to be ranked equally *and* first,
only that they needed to be ranked equally.
sensible options/FD/zealot options
FD/sensible options/zealot options
I'm emphasizing this now, because voting FD first and everyting else
ranked equally below FD doesn't help (that's 2222221); sensible
options need to be ranked higher.
I wrote my post carefully because my intent wass not to tell people what
they needed to vote, but to highlight *how* (and not *what*) to
vote. I felt that given the complexity of this vote, it was important
to highlight that, if only to get people to carefully look at how the
Julien BLACHE - Debian & GNU/Linux Developer - <email@example.com>
Public key available on <http://www.jblache.org> - KeyID: F5D6 5169
GPG Fingerprint : 935A 79F1 C8B3 3521 FD62 7CC7 CD61 4FD7 F5D6 5169