Re: Social Contract GR's Affect on sarge
On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 08:53:56 -0700, Matt Zimmerman <mdz@debian.org> said:
> On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 01:04:33PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
>> On Tue, Apr 27, 2004 at 03:04:08PM -0700, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
>> > Neither the CFVs nor http://www.debian.org/vote/2004/vote_003
>> > provided a meaningful account of the changes between the previous
>> > Social Contract and the proposed one. This would have been very
>> > helpful to those of us who don't read yet another mailing list,
>> > since weeks passed between the RFD mail (March 24th) and the
>> > First Call for votes (April 11th).
>>
>> Presumably you're looking for
>> http://people.debian.org/~asuffield/social_contract_reform.3 which
>> was referenced from the first announcement of the GR[0], although
>> it didn't make it into the CFV.
> Yes, I found this eventually. I merely suggested that it would have
> been helpful to have a link in the CFV.
The best time to make that suggestion would have been _before_
the vote.
Are you happy with the the RFD that went out recently? Or do
you think that title too is deceptive, or that the body of the RFC
(which shall be boiled down into the ballot, modulo amendments) needs
more information?
If there are any who think that that is the case, the time to
speak up is _now_, not after the results are tallied.
manoj
--
``I can understand the indifference of others, but SOMEONE has to do
SOMETHING about this SOON -- before NOBODY CAN DO ANYTHING AT
ALL!!!!'' William Kahan (shouting), 16 Feb 1990, on why `0.0/0.0'
should not
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Reply to: