On Sunday 16 November 2008, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > I think we can be reasonably sure that the current spate of > discussions is about releasing Lenny. For this action, any of the > ballot options will have a distinct decision; and the ballot should > have _all_ the possible courses of action for that decision. If the current vote is going to be interpreted that way then any option that _modifies_ foundation documents is not relevant and does not add to the GR. The same goes for options that _structurally_ allow the RT to allow violations. Those are clearly long-term decisions, which apparently you feel should be decided separately. I therefore propose to remove Proposals 5 and 6 on your list [1] from this vote and to hold a separate vote on them later. IMO the then remaining proposals still cover all relevant scenarios for the release of Lenny (as proposal 3 basically covers 5 with a restriction to Lenny). The current ballot really is highly inconsistent and confusing with your interpretation of it. This does leave the problem whether a delay of a vote on GR proposals that have received sufficient seconds is allowed, but possibly if the proposers of 5 and 6 agree we should just do that. Cheers, FJP [1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2008/11/msg00186.html
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.