On 08/08/2016 03:34 PM, Holger Levsen wrote:
> I expressed my surprise about a missing third option ("depeal the GR
> of 2005 and burry the idea of systematically declassifying
> debian-private") on #debian-private and have learned there that this
> seems to have been an oversight / others agree that there should have
> been this third option.
I agree. I found it rather alienating that we are having a vote which basically
has the options "Yes" and "Continue arguing" but not a "No" which is I think
is as much as a legitimate answer as "Yes" is. I feel the same about the other,
currently pending GR, independent of what it's actually about.
If we set up a vote to ask a closed-ended question, we should always provide
both options, i.e. agreement or disagreement. Because if you're having a vote
and ask a large audience for their opinion on a certain topic you should
always be prepared to accept the opposite view.
> Obviously, if choice 1 does win, I will *not* propose a GR to overcome this.
> But if choice 1 does *not* win, I don't think the projects want "further
> discussion" but rather "choice 3".
I fully agree.
> If you reply, please respect the reply-to: headers.
Done! Thanks for reminding me :).
Cheers,
Adrian
--
.''`. John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
: :' : Debian Developer - glaubitz@debian.org
`. `' Freie Universitaet Berlin - glaubitz@physik.fu-berlin.de
`- GPG: 62FF 8A75 84E0 2956 9546 0006 7426 3B37 F5B5 F913
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature