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

Re: Second call for votes for the Lenny release GR

(Restricting to d-vote.)

Thank you for your quick reply. 

On Tuesday 23 December 2008, Bdale Garbee wrote:
> But note that even if the super-majority issue causes some choices to
> have a low priority of winning, we the project at large can still learn
> very interesting things by studying the Condorcet intermediate results.

Agreed in general, but...
The issue is not only "winning". The issue is also "not being ranked 
because they get dropped before ranking because of failing to reach 
majority". This will skew the official final result further than would be 
the case in the absence of the super-majority requirements.

> The only bad outcomes, really, would be if people in positions of power
> within the project for some reason choose to behave precipitously in the
> wake of this vote.  I really don't expect that.

I'm happy to accept the outcome of the current vote if the project 
collectively does indeed turn out to act in line with the two quoted 
statements above. I appreciate your mentioning them explicitly.

I very much agree with both of them and even feel that, within those 
restrictions, the vote could possibly still turn out to have sufficient 
validity and clarity to decide on the single, limited question whether or 
not the Lenny release can go forward with the current kernel packages.

Thanks again,

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

Reply to: