[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

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

On Friday, December 6, 2019 3:59:43 PM EST Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> 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.

I count there are 5 now.

Scott K

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Reply to: