[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: call for seconds: on firmware

On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 12:13:25PM +0000, Robert Millan wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 08:54:17AM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> > 
> > Let me observe that the fact that "several people here think" is not
> > authoritative.
> > 
> > That said, I disagree with point (ii) of your interpretation:
> > 
> > >     i Do we require source for firmware in main:                 Yes
> > >    ii Do we allow the Release Team to ignore SC violation bugs:  No
> > >   iii What do we do for Lenny:                                   Wait
> > >    iV Do we modify foundation documents:                         No
> > >     v Do we override foundation documents                        No
> > 
> > it should rather be "Yes":
> Instead of having a long, useless discussion on what "Further discussion"
> means, would it be possible to remove that option?
> Correct me if I am wrong, but I think for any interpretation of what "Further
> Discussion" would mean in this vote, there's an explicit option in the ballot.

Further discussion means none of the ballot options seems right to me, I
prefer we discuss this again. IOW it's the statu quo, it solves nothing,
it means "please draft a new ballot". I see no problem with such a
meaning, it's always what it has meant.
·O·  Pierre Habouzit
··O                                                madcoder@debian.org
OOO                                                http://www.madism.org

Attachment: pgp_U9XymhpIT.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: