Re: Analysis of the ballot options
* Josip Rodin (joy@srce.hr) [040620 17:10]:
> On Sat, Jun 19, 2004 at 10:56:49PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > > > [ ] Choice 6: Reaffirm the current SC [needs 1:1]
> > Choice 6 is titled wrong. It's not a reaffirmation of the social
> > contract, it's an affirmation of a certain interpretation of the
> > social contract. An affirmation of another interpretation of the
> > social contract was not allowed to be put on the ballot.
> Not allowed? Really? And all this time I thought that my opinion was simply
> in a minority so small that nobody bothered making a proposal out of it! :)
See http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/06/msg00000.html (for the
proposal, seconded by Eduard Bloch, Michael Schiansky, Marco d'Itri,
Marc Haber, John H. Robinson (IV), giving the required quorum of the
constitution), and rejected by the secretary in that form because it
also spoke about the release interval, see
http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/06/msg00035.html
| I am just saying that portions of this proposal, as it reads
| now, do not address the issue that the current GR addresses, and
| must needs go on another ballot, and another vote.
Cheers,
Andi
--
http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/
PGP 1024/89FB5CE5 DC F1 85 6D A6 45 9C 0F 3B BE F1 D0 C5 D1 D9 0C
Reply to: