On Tue, 03 Dec 2019 12:54:40 +0000, Ian Jackson wrote: > I have written this mail To people who seconded Guillem's proposal and > to some people from the thread. I would particularly like to hear > your views. > > I am considering making a formal variant of Guillem's proposal, which, > if Guillem doesn't agree that specific guidance is needed, would stand > on the ballot alongside Guillem's and my proposal D. I would like > that proposal to reflect the views of people who seconded Guillem's > proposal. I found and find Guillem's text very appealing; and I also can see that people who are involved in the issue on the technical or the policy side would like to have concrete answers to the pending questions and guidance for moving forward. For the latter I think that your proposal is a good approach as it tries to spell out the compromise in concrete actions. So yes, for me a combination of options G and D would be (or maybe more accurately: would have been …) helpful in finalizing my ranking of the options given my ambivalence. Cheers, gregor -- .''`. https://info.comodo.priv.at -- Debian Developer https://www.debian.org : :' : OpenPGP fingerprint D1E1 316E 93A7 60A8 104D 85FA BB3A 6801 8649 AA06 `. `' Member VIBE!AT & SPI Inc. -- Supporter Free Software Foundation Europe `- NP: Dave Brubeck: In Your Own Sweet Way
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital Signature