Re: Proposal - Statement that Sarge will follow Woody requirement for main.
On Wed, 26 May 2004 10:12:59 -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz <dan@debian.org> said:
> On Wed, May 26, 2004 at 09:24:19AM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
>> > > Did the Technicall Committee really say officially that they
>> > > refuse to decide, or did only individual member say that they
>> > > prefer a GR?
>>
>> On Wed, May 26, 2004 at 09:08:47AM -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
>> > After catching up on a week's shouting on debian-vote, I'm still
>> > looking for an answer to this question. I think that the
>> > Technical Committee is a more appropriate solution to this
>> > problem; if they don't agree with me then we have to continue
>> > down the GR path, but I would like to see a decision one way or
>> > the other.
>>
>> The technical committee has yet to issue any official opinion.
> In that case, I think it's premature to be this focused on the GRs
> until that has happened. I at least would prefer to avoid a GR if
> the Technical Committee's opinion permits.
While no formal opinion was issued, most of the members who
spoke on this issue stated that the tech ctte should defer this
decision to the developers in the form of a GR. (I also think that
overriding a foundation document needs to have buy in and
ratification of the full membership, and not thrust on them from up
on high by the tech ctte)
manoj
--
I might be able to shoehorn a reference count in on top of the numeric
value by disallowing multiple references on scalars with a numeric
value, but it wouldn't be as clean. I do occasionally worry about
that. --lwall
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Reply to: