Re: call for seconds: on firmware
On Sun, Nov 16 2008, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 11:42:19AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> I do not think throwing options out because they are not of a
>> narrow and limited scope is right. The proposer and sponsors can
>> withdraw them, if they think the scope is too broad for the problem at
>> hand. No one else should be removing them from consideration as a
>> solution to the Lenny issue.
> The proposers and sponsors of option 5 didn't propose this as an amendment
> to the current GR. Why should they have to *withdraw* the proposal in order
> to get it considered separately at a later time?
They only need to do so to prevent it from being on the current
ballot. I think it would be a pity of any of the 6 options is
withdrawn, since any of them could lend us relief from the current mess
wrt Lenny release.
As to future votes, anyone may propose a failed option on any
vote for a fresh look anytime they so desire.
Our business is run on trust. We trust you will pay in advance.
Manoj Srivastava <firstname.lastname@example.org> <http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C