On Thu, Nov 29, 2007 at 07:51:37PM +0000, Ian Jackson wrote: > This time can we _please_ try to get quorum ? You must send in your > vote within 7 days of me sending this message, for it to count, ie by > approximately 2007-12-06 19:50 +0000.
Well, not much leeway here it seems. FWIW, my vote on this resolution was going to be: -8<- 1. RFC3484 s6 rule 9 should not be applied to IPv4 addresses by Debian systems, and we DO overrule the maintainer. 2. RFC3484 s6 rule 9 should not be applied to IPv6 addresses by Debian systems. We do NOT overrule the maintainer. 3. We recommend to the IETF that RFC3484 s6 rule 9 should be abolished for IPv4, and that it should be reconsidered for IPv6. -8<- -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [2] Choice X: Do not use rule 9, overrule maintainer, etc., as above. [4] Choice S: Sort IPv4 addrs according to rule 9 in getaddrinfo [4] Choice M: Leave the choice up to the maintainers. [1] Choice F: Further discussion -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- which of course would have caused the resolution to fail supermajority. But given that I think the technical outcome on the package is the correct one, this is fine and I'll just get back to working on a position statement to the IETF. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature