Re: Results for General Resolution: Lenny and resolving DFSG violations

[Andreas Barth <aba@not.so.argh.org>]

* Thomas Bushnell BSG (tb@becket.net) [081228 23:56]:
> On Sun, 2008-12-28 at 09:05 +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > What this voting seems to show is that clearly a majority doesn't want to
> > stop the release of Lenny. What it also shows however is that the mixing up
> > of the other options on this ballot and the way the supermajority
> > requirements were set is problematic, and probably supporters of any other
> > option than 1 (and perhaps also except 6) can claim that they would've won
> > if the majority requirements were set in a way they consider more
> > appropriate.

> It is problematic?  Are you saying that the 2/3 requirement for changes
> to the foundation documents should not apply if a majority thinks
> otherwise?

I'm not convinced why e.g. resolution 4 needs a 3:1-majority requirement, even
though I cannot really see a difference between further discussion and that
variant.

But we already had all of that prior and during the vote, no need to repeat it.


Cheers,
Andi