Re: Option G update (was Re: Proposal: Reaffirm our commitment to support portability and multiple implementations)

[Kurt Roeckx <kurt@roeckx.be>]

On Fri, Dec 06, 2019 at 09:04:39PM +0100, Guillem Jover wrote:
> Hi!
> 
> Ok, so here's what I'd like (or would have liked) to get into the ballot,
> given the new context after the addition of the combined D+G option. But
> it's not very clear to me whether this will be acceptable or not to the
> Secretary, and what would be the actual procedure to replace the existing
> option G with this one (as long as enough of the original sponsors are
> fine with it), as I've found the way the procedure was applied/interpreted
> to be rather confusing or perhaps not matching my memory of previous
> instances.

You're really cutting this short, sending an email 4 hours before the
vote starts, and we're not at 3 hours before the start. I'm going to
need to see at least 5 people seconding this update before 23 UTC,
so 2 hours left, to allow this update.


Kurt