Re: Call for seconds: Suspension of the changes of the Project's membership procedures.
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 03:30:02PM +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> On 11551 March 1977, Charles Plessy wrote:
>
> > I would be more than happy if a discussion between the different poles of
> > opinions would start, with focus on convergence.
>
> This GR effectively blocks any [motivation to have a] discussion.
Hi Joerg,
I read your recent blog entry on the topic, and I think you make interesting
points defending your proposal. From my perspective (i.e. the perspective of
someone who isn't very familiarized with the areas of Debian affected by your
proposed changes), the whole thing looked confusing, and I didn't know (still
don't!) whether I would support it or not.
So, I totally support you in defending your proposal, but I think it could've
been a lot better if those points were made _before_ the announcement. The
reason I seconded this GR is because, one way or the other, I think a healthy
reform is one that is endorsed by the majority of developers [1] (and if the
proposed vote doesn't pass, that is a form of endorsement too).
I'd like to encourage you to bring this discussion forward, and push for your
proposed changes to gain acceptance. My opinion, right now, is that I have no
clue about what they imply, and will most likely not vote or send a no-op
ballot.
[1] or members, or people with voting rights, whatever..
--
Robert Millan
The DRM opt-in fallacy: "Your data belongs to us. We will decide when (and
how) you may access your data; but nobody's threatening your freedom: we
still allow you to remove your data and not access it at all."
Reply to: