Re: Ballot update (was Re: usr/man vs usr/share/man?)
On Thu, Sep 02, 1999 at 08:34:20AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Since The point obviously did not get across, here's another
Please note that the reason your point didn't get across the on your
previous try was that the message you're responding to was posted before
your previous try.
Also, note that we need to address all the problems with our proposed
Finally, I'm not going to strike Joey's proposal from the ballot for the
simple reason that we have not had enough well reasoned discussion on this
issue. Yes, his proposal is inadequate, but that does not make it unique
on this ballot.
My preference would have been to tackle this issue before it became policy.
My preference would be to have a rough consensus amoung all the committee
members (or, at least a rough idea of where each member stands on this issue,
and why) before I called the vote.
You've convinced me that I should not vote for Joey's proposal -- even in
a revised form. But it's already on the ballot, and I'm going to leave it
there. Let it get voted down.
At the moment I'm far more concerned about our other three members. I'm
not sure if I should wait for them to comment and/or vote.