Re: Status of resolutions about TC tweaks
* Steve Langasek (vorlon@debian.org) [060227 20:33]:
> > It is not clear to me whether a chairmanship schedule has been
> > approved and if it has been approved what it would mean. Steve, as
> > the current Chairman, should tell us what his opinion is.
>
> You, me, and Anthony voted yes on Anthony's proposed rotation; Raul voted
> for the committee chair, did not vote on the proposed rotation; Bdale[1]
> and Andi[2] indicated they were "ok" or "fine" with the rotation proposal,
> but I don't see that this can be taken for a formal "yes" vote on the
> proposal in question
My "ok" is a formal "yes" to the proposal in question.
> > B. `Requiring implementation':
>
> > The following draft resolution:
>
> > ] (2) Requiring an implementation of proposals
> > ]
> > ] So I propose we establish a rule that we won't make decisions on
> > ] issues that aren't ready for an immediate NMU when we make that
> > ] decision.
>
> > was proposed on the 15th of February by Anthony. Andreas, I, Raul
> > and Manoj voted no (formally, Further Discussion). Steve and
> > Anthony voted yes. With four votes against, the outcome is no
> > longer in doubt and the resolution is defeated.
>
> My count of the votes:
>
> For:
>
> Anthony: http://lists.debian.org/debian-ctte/2006/02/msg00033.html
> Steve: http://lists.debian.org/debian-ctte/2006/02/msg00035.html
>
> Against (FD):
>
> Ian: http://lists.debian.org/debian-ctte/2006/02/msg00036.html
> Andi: http://lists.debian.org/debian-ctte/2006/02/msg00039.html
> Manoj: http://lists.debian.org/debian-ctte/2006/02/msg00059.html
BTW, I think something similar should be done, but not as strict as in
this resolution draft. But let's discuss about that seperate from voting
details.
Cheers,
Andi
--
http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/
Reply to: