On Thu, Sep 28, 2006 at 10:59:36PM +0200, Frederik Schueler wrote: > Hello, > > On Thu, Sep 28, 2006 at 11:45:54AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote: > > fs, this is contrary to what we where trying to achieve, i would like to > > know > > why you seconded this. > > What we want to archive, is release etch in time, being installable on > all hardware supported upstream. From the discussion about this > amendment, I understood this is being covered here, so I think this is a > good compromise.
Ok, but manaoj's amendment, which you approved, doesn't allow for that, which is why i was surprised when you accepted it. I believe, following our discussion on irc, that you probably misunderstood the impact of the amendment, and others seem to have wildly different interpretations of it from what Manoj originally meant. In this way, i beleive it is a bad amendment, if nothing else because it brings confusion as to its interpretation, and it brings the risk of us being at the same point, post-vote as we are today. I strongly urge you to recall your acceptance of it, and instead search together a better position during the irc meeting tomorrow. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
