On Tue, May 18, 2004 at 01:04:12AM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote: > On Mon, May 17, 2004 at 12:33:02AM -0400, David B Harris wrote: > > Hey, does anybody object to a call for votes on > > http://www.debian.org/vote/2004/vote_004 being put out by the secretary? > > There was much discussion on the issue on many lists, and going by the > > proposers and seconders, everybody I would expect to actively > > participate in any discussion has already had their hand in this issue. > Before we can vote, we need the opinion of the Release Manager. No. You don't. Before you vote, you need to _think about the consequences of your vote_. Nothing more, nothing less. > The main reason we are discussing this so-called 'Sarge GR' is because > we failed to gather his opinion, when discussing the previous one, on > whether the GR would affect Sarge. No. You didn't. I made my opinion quite clear on this list back in January when we were discussing these things. The consequences of the social contract as amended seemed clear to me, and to the folks I talked to about it afterwards. If it wasn't clear to _you_, then that's your problem, and no one else's. > So before we can vote, we need, for each of the ballots options, the opinion > of the Release Manager on their effects on Sarge release. If you really think that, you're making the _exact_ same mistake you made previously. You don't need my opinion, you need one of your own. And the way to get that is to _think about the consequences_. There's no need to have a vote here at all: if you can convince the technical ctte that the social contract doesn't mean what I think it says, or can come up with a consensus that we don't care about being able to have a literal interpretation of the social contract, then that's fine: they can set the release policy back to what it was with no argument from me. If you don't think that's a good outcome, then you need to think about what _is_ a good outcome. If the social contract means something, _what_ does it mean? That's a question for the project to answer, not the release manager. And on this issue, it's been answered by the project once. If the project's going to change its mind, how is the project going to make sure its new stance is any more sensible than the old one? Relying on the expedient solution to be the best one seems... flawed to me. Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns <email@example.com> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/> Don't assume I speak for anyone but myself. GPG signed mail preferred. ``Like the ski resort of girls looking for husbands and husbands looking for girls, the situation is not as symmetrical as it might seem.''
Description: Digital signature