On Fri, May 01, 2009 at 03:52:47PM +0200, Luk Claes wrote: > Charles Plessy wrote: >> >> There were discussions started on the supermajority requirement, that >> unfortunately were unconclusive (20090302002303.gm29...@matthew.ath.cx), >> >> http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2009/03/msg00003.html >> >> Nevertheless, wouldn't it be safer to first resolve this issue, while >> keeping as >> a goal to address the firmware question early in the release cycle? > > Well sponsors of the proposals have till Sunday to get it to vote > AFAICS. Personally I would not mind to have a vote for this first and I > won't start the process for a firmware vote before the vote about > supermajority is either dropped (when no sponsor reacts) or voted on...
Current vote that is in the process of being withdrawn has nothing to do with the supermajority requirement. It's about sponsorship requirements. The supermajority is about things like who decideds if something needs 3:1 supermajority if it's not clear. Kurt -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
