On Friday 13 October 2006 16:13, Sven Luther wrote: > For all these reasons, the kernel team believes that the solution > proposed at [3], and which already reached enough seconds, and will thus > be needed to be voted on, is a better solution, and since it is not > possible anymore to amend the current ballot, > we urge all voters to vote "Further Discussion", Why is this needed? Can't the new ballot be voted on anyway even if the current one is already accepted? As the vote is already underway (and the voting period almost finished), it seems that this call for recasting votes *could* have very undesired effects depending on who decides to recast their votes and who not. For example, I'd expect people who want a less restrictive solution for Etch to change their vote sooner than people who would prefer all firmware to be removed. It seems to me changing votes is very ill-advised and I would therefore urge all voters to just vote the current ballot in the way they think best, looking only at the options available in the ballot and to not be distracted by things that may or may not happen later. I at least will not change the vote I've already submitted. I would also urge Sven to follow up to d-d-a to cancel his advice to voters to change their vote. > and allow for the recast of a new ballot containing > the better solution, and possible other amendments (like a rewording of > Josselin's proposal on top of the consensual proposal for example). Cheers, FJP
Attachment:
pgp2yHZ9DO1e0.pgp
Description: PGP signature