On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 08:31:31PM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> I'd like to see other options too, for, say Q/3, Q/2, 10, 15. This
> would allow us to compromise on what people think is necessary,
> without being restricted by your arbitrary choice of Q and 2Q. Could
> you add those to your proposed resolution, so people can second all
> of them at the same time and reduce the number of emails on -vote@?
Agreed: if we have to vote on numbers, that I prefer to vote on a good
range of them.
Also, I would like to ask the secretary or the proposer to prepare,
for when the ballot will be ready, an informative page with the
numbers matching the current number of developers and the
corresponding number of needed seconds. I believe in a vote like this
one people will be likely to vote on the basis of those numbers.
Cheers.
--
Stefano Zacchiroli -o- PhD in Computer Science \ PostDoc @ Univ. Paris 7
zack@{upsilon.cc,pps.jussieu.fr,debian.org} -<>- http://upsilon.cc/zack/
Dietro un grande uomo c'è ..| . |. Et ne m'en veux pas si je te tutoie
sempre uno zaino ...........| ..: |.... Je dis tu à tous ceux que j'aime
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature