Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au> wrote: > There was a second ballot, which had six options on it, namely "delay > the SC change until Sept 1st 2004", "delay the SC change until sarge > releases", "apologise", "revert to SC 1.0", "create a transition guide > for the SC and DFSG", "reaffirm the new SC". > > The last option failed to achieve even a simple majority (188 ranked > it below further discussion, 155 ranked it above), each of the other > options achieved a 2:1 supermajority, but only the "delay the SC change" > options achieved the required 3:1 supermajority.
Which pretty much argues for the position that the project wants the new SC, but is willing to compromise on the timeline of achieving it. >> Well, i believe that both of them basically said the same thing. > > Yes, we've had that discussion; the key point is you used the word > "software" to cover more of the contents of main, than others did. The key point seems to be that you want to renew a discussion that, according to many's perception, has already taken place sufficiently, while you said somewhere that it hadn't... Regards, Frank -- Frank Küster Single Molecule Spectroscopy, Protein Folding @ Inst. f. Biochemie, Univ. Zürich Debian Developer (teTeX/TeXLive)