On Wed, Sep 06, 2006 at 09:03:14AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote: > On Wed, Sep 06, 2006 at 12:11:08PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 05, 2006 at 05:54:25PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote: > > > We are quickly reaching the point where holding a vote on this issue and still > > > maintaining a timely etch release, so i believe that we should held a vote on > > > this issue sooner rather than later. > > > This GR, which was seen by Steve as orthogonal to his GR, > > Steve's resolution was proposed two weeks ago, this one was proposed one > > week ago. [...] > Yes, but i discussed this with Manoj the yesterday, where he said that : > 1) If Steve was to retire his proposal, all the amendments will have to be > reproposed as standalone GRs, which will reset the discussion period. > 2) He didn't see the proposals as separate, as i am proposing here. Ah, I see what you're getting at. If the release team thinks going ahead with this is the right approach, I'm happy to go along with that, including deferring my GR stuff. AFAICS none of the release team have seconded that proposal though? I don't think I've seen Manoj's thoughts on whether that proposal will require a 3:1 supermajority or has any other flaws either. > Manoj was of the opinion that the RMs have the power to decide this all by > themselves, but it was my understanding that they where searching the > legitimacy of a GR vote in order to do so. Manoj? RMs? > But again, it is not because we vote this one, that we will suddenly stop > working on solving the issue, and if we solve it all or at least a part, so > much the better. Hear, hear. Cheers, aj
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature