Re: SC changes
Don Armstrong <email@example.com> writes:
> I gathered that you were interested in seeing the vote split up into
> multiple votes on every single section because you weren't happy with
> the amendment in total rather than inviting a discussion on the
> perceived issue(s) with different section(s) of the amendment.
No, my goal is not just to cast a vote, but also to hone the
proposal. I'm still thinking over the details of the wording.
> Why not start a discussion dealing with the actual issue(s) then?
I'm still thinking over the detail of the wording. I suspect the
meta-issue has taken enough time already so I'll drop this (which was
just a brief idea anyway), and once I've had time for my thoughts
about wording to gel, I'll post them.
> 1: Considering you were trumpeting the debian list guidelines
> recently, could you please consider following them?
I try to remember. Emacs still doesn't do the Right Thing quite