Re: What your ballot should look like if you're in favor of releasing sarge
On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 19:50:58 +1000, Hamish Moffatt <email@example.com> said:
> On Thu, Jun 24, 2004 at 12:57:20AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
>> Hamish Moffatt <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
>> > That was because the voters were 20% of the developers, as you
>> > well know. I'm also hoping that we've engaged enough of the
>> > developers that we might get a representative vote this time.
>> I see. Is that what the Constitution says? If you don't like who
>> won, then just keep proposing GRs, claiming that not enough people
>> voted last time? When you lose a vote, raise as big a stink as
>> possible and have more votes? You really think this is a good
> Not in general. In this case a number of developers feel (rightly or
> wrongly) that they were misled by the previous ballot, and wanted
> another chance to influence Debian policy.
People who are too lazy to read three!! messages sent to
their mailbox about an important issue like a foundation
document change are unlikely to pay attention anyway.
> I think that you can reasonably expect this to happen again next
> time the developers feel they are misled.
They are liars. Misled how? Tge full fucking text of the
bloody GR was in the ballot sent to each developer not once,
not twice , but three times. If you do not read the ballot, and do
not read about what you are supposed to be voting on when sent to
you in email, there is no hope for the project.
I am tired of all the apologists for people who were just too
lazy to read a low volume list like d-d-a, and now seek to malign
the secretary and sponsors by saying they were ``mislead''.
Detroit is Cleveland without the glitter.
Manoj Srivastava <email@example.com> <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