Re: First call for votes for the Lenny release GR
On Thu, 18 Dec 2008, Don Armstrong wrote:
> You made comments, and in
> <email@example.com> were instructed to
> get the approval of the proposer of the option in order for the
> secretary to change the title of the option. FWICT, you either did not
> attempt to do so, or none of the people who proposed or seconded the
> proposal agreed with your suggested change. That's of course your
> option, but berating the Secretary for failing to try to reach
> consensus when you haven't either after having been asked to do so
> seems disingenuous.
The proposer Robert Millan has been following the discussions from the
beginning (with the volume of mails he sent, it's quite obvious) and he
could have responded as well.
I agree that Robert is to be blamed as much as Manoj.
The constitution says clearly:
“The person who calls for a vote states what they believe the wordings
of the resolution and any relevant amendments are, and consequently what
form the ballot should take. However, the final decision on the form of
ballot(s) is the Secretary's - see 7.1(1), 7.1(3) and A.3(4).”
> Finally, I would seriously hope that anyone who has voting rights in
> Debian is fully capable of completely ignoring the title of the ballot
> option and actually reading the text of the issue under discussion, as
> no ballot title can possibly convey the entirety of the issue under
> discussion nor the portions of the issue that are of most significant
> to each voter. I know I do due dilligence before voting; if anyone
> can't for whatever reason, vote a blank ballot.
I do read the proposals, but the title has to reflect the content of the
proposal and should somehow refer to the differientating factor with the
Le best-seller français mis à jour pour Debian Etch :