On Thu, Oct 05, 2006 at 02:41:40PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > On Thu, 5 Oct 2006 17:04:32 +1000, Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au> > said: > > > I don't think it's worth further delaying this vote to include this > > position statement; as per [0] the minimum discussion period for > > Manoj's amendment as accepted by Frederik [1] ended 4th Oct 2006 > > 19:53:58 UTC, which is about 11 hours ago; so we could get on with > > calling for a vote and have this over and done with in a little over > > a week if the proposers and seconders are willing. > > > [0] http://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2006/10/msg00005.html[1] > > http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2006/09/msg00567.html > > This is a call for votes to start on the firmware resolution: > The proposed ballot is: > [ ] Release Etch even with kernel firmware issues > [ ] Special exception to DFSG #2 for firmware as long as required [3:1] > [ ] Further discussion > > I'm attaching the proposed WML page for this vote (vote_007.wml).
I strongly oppose this. You know we are working on a clarification of Frederik's proposal, and there are two new proposal on the table getting seconds. This kind of behaviour on your part, are the ones which give credit to those accusing you of twisting the voting system to your liking, and as i was outraged when those accusations where made against you, i would much have preffered that you didn't act in such a way. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
