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

Re: call for seconds: on firmware

On Sunday 16 November 2008, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>         I think we can be reasonably sure that the current spate of
>  discussions is about releasing Lenny. For this action, any of the
>  ballot options will have a distinct decision; and the ballot should
>  have _all_ the possible courses of action for that decision.

If the current vote is going to be interpreted that way then any option 
that _modifies_ foundation documents is not relevant and does not add to 
the GR. The same goes for options that _structurally_ allow the RT to 
allow violations.

Those are clearly long-term decisions, which apparently you feel should be 
decided separately.

I therefore propose to remove Proposals 5 and 6 on your list [1] from this 
vote and to hold a separate vote on them later.

IMO the then remaining proposals still cover all relevant scenarios for 
the release of Lenny (as proposal 3 basically covers 5 with a restriction 
to Lenny).

The current ballot really is highly inconsistent and confusing with your 
interpretation of it.

This does leave the problem whether a delay of a vote on GR proposals that 
have received sufficient seconds is allowed, but possibly if the 
proposers of 5 and 6 agree we should just do that.


[1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2008/11/msg00186.html

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Reply to: