This one time, at band camp, Robert Millan said: > On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 09:14:27PM +0000, Matthew Johnson wrote: > > On Mon Jan 12 22:07, Robert Millan wrote: > > > I find this reasonable, in general, for minor issues. But it's worth noting > > > that in this occasion, the developers didn't feel it was necessary to delegate > > > this responsibility. If they did, they'd have voted for option 4. > > > > They did vote for option 4, through the wonders of condorcet. more than > > half the voters were happy with that option (or it would not have beaten > > FD) > > For a very specific and convenient definition of "happy". According to your > definition, the developers endorsed both delegating and not delegating at > the same time! > > I guess now you'll have a hard time explaining me what this means... Not at all. Option 1 was the only option that failed to meet simple majority. Every other option on the ballot beat it by somewhere between a factor of 2 and 3. That seems like a pretty clear vote that the solution you are advocating is not what the project wants. While it's true that the other options have various levels of support, they all have more support than the option you put forward. Unfortunately, you're now moving into the argument by mail volume pattern, so I see that you haven't accepted the outcome. I think I'll stop now, as this is looking to become another tediously long thread and it doesn't need more people repeating the same things. -- ----------------------------------------------------------------- | ,''`. Stephen Gran | | : :' : sgran@debian.org | | `. `' Debian user, admin, and developer | | `- http://www.debian.org | -----------------------------------------------------------------
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature