Re: Results of the Lenny release GR
On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 01:18:43PM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 01:06:21PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> > On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 08:22:58AM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
> > > You're the Secretary. You're supposed to give answers, not speculation. If
> > > the ballot was ambigous, or confusing, it is YOUR responsibility.
> > It has to be said that at least I am taking YOU personally responsable
> > for a lot of why the ballot was ambigous as well, not least to the fact
> > you named your proposal "Reaffirm the Social Contract", i.e. SC-trolling
> > the rest of the project not in line with your opinion.
> I keep hearing this "SC is not binding" story, as if repeating it lots of times
> made it true, but fact is that the project already rejected option 4 which is
> the one that represents this line of reasoning.
> If you're so serious about it, I challenge you to propose it as a separate
I challenge you to do something useful for the project instead of dragging
us down with voting nonsense.
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/