[ Apologies for going quiet again - it's been a busy few days, including testing and publishing two sets of point release images. ] On Thu, Sep 08, 2022 at 04:54:06PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: >Steve McIntyre <steve@einval.com> writes: > >> That looks good to me - concise and clear. Thanks! > >Steve, what do you think about the suggestion above that we have a ballot >option that only changes the SC and doesn't issue a statement on an issue >of the day, and thus doesn't include the text of your proposal? I'm >worried that may feel like the project isn't providing enough guidance or >a clear enough decision, but I'm not sure if that's true. Quite. I can understand and sympathise with that suggestion, but I'm really hoping for specific direction from the wider project here rather than just a "we allow this" SC update. That latter would leave the decision on firmware-included images solely in my hands, along with the responsibility and (potentially) the blame here. I hope that makes my position clearer? -- Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK. steve@einval.com "C++ ate my sanity" -- Jon Rabone
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature