Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The current vote will determine what the majority of voters think.
> Hopefully that will be the end of it.
Not likely. The last vote determined what 3/4 of the voters thought,
and people weren't willing to let that be the end of it.
Thomas
--
To U
On Wed, Jun 23, 2004 at 02:52:03PM -0400, Clint Adams wrote:
> WV> Who's to say what's "valid" and what isn't? When I originally read (and
> WV> agreed with) the SC, there was nobody to tell me that the way I read it
> WV> at the time wasn't considered "valid". There was also nobody who pointed
> W
On Tue, Jun 22, 2004 at 07:45:53PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> I find it to be more like fishing for consensus, by trying as many
> possibilities as possible (hence "buckshot"). It really could have
> been better refined (if nothing else, the combinations of options
> which are *not* present in
On Thu, Jun 24, 2004 at 02:13:39AM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> Well, this thread has certainly proven Manoj right, at least in part:
> there exists a group of developers who not only refuse to try to build
> consensus, but actively resist any attempts by anybody else to do so.
This is hypocris
> An easier way is to look at the votes when they come
> out. Anyone who votes further discussion in the top 3 is not
> interested in compromise or consensus, and has decided "My way or
> the Highway".
Or it could mean that he prefers further discussion to several
options.
--
To UNSUBS
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> An easier way is to look at the votes when they come
> out. Anyone who votes further discussion in the top 3 is not
> interested in compromise or consensus, and has decided "My way or
> the Highway".
FWIW, my ballot ranks only one option bel
On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 02:13:39 +0100, Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Well, this thread has certainly proven Manoj right, at least in
> part: there exists a group of developers who not only refuse to try
> to build consensus, but actively resist any attempts by anybody else
> to do so.
Well, this thread has certainly proven Manoj right, at least in part:
there exists a group of developers who not only refuse to try to build
consensus, but actively resist any attempts by anybody else to do so.
It's interesting to scan through the thread and pick out who is
bringing anything to th
WV> Who's to say what's "valid" and what isn't? When I originally read (and
WV> agreed with) the SC, there was nobody to tell me that the way I read it
WV> at the time wasn't considered "valid". There was also nobody who pointed
WV> me at the subtle inconsistency in the way I interpreted the origin
On 2004-06-23 17:34:11 +0100 Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...] There was also nobody who pointed
me at the subtle inconsistency in the way I interpreted the original
SC.
Sue me, English isn't my native language. [...]
Personally, I apologise for the communications failures. Please h
Op wo 23-06-2004, om 18:16 schreef Clint Adams:
> > as "grandfather resolutions" as described, and, by explicitly removing
> > the Social Contract's requirement to have DFSG-free documentation and
> > firmware for sarge/some-period-of-time/whatever, go back to allowing
> > discretion on the part of
On Wed, Jun 23, 2004 at 12:16:26PM -0400, Clint Adams wrote:
> You're implying here that those things were allowed under a valid
> interpretation of the original SC.
Given historical practice, that's not an unreasonable interpretation.
--
Raul
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wit
> as "grandfather resolutions" as described, and, by explicitly removing
> the Social Contract's requirement to have DFSG-free documentation and
> firmware for sarge/some-period-of-time/whatever, go back to allowing
> discretion on the part of those who would ordinarily be responsible for
> release
On Tue, Jun 22, 2004 at 11:33:29AM -0500, Graham Wilson wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 22, 2004 at 11:28:06AM -0500, Graham Wilson wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 22, 2004 at 04:43:29PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
> > > Can you please refer me to the discussions in question? As far as I can
> > > tell, both Steve and
Bill Allombert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 22, 2004 at 04:43:29PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
>> >
>> > This rely on the premices that at least some options will allow to release
>> > sarge sooner. Unfortunately discussions on debian-vote involving the
>> > release manager and the ctt
On Wed, Jun 23, 2004 at 01:14:07PM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 22, 2004 at 04:43:29PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 22, 2004 at 05:35:07PM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
> > > This rely on the premices that at least some options will allow to release
> > > sarge sooner. Un
On Tue, Jun 22, 2004 at 04:43:29PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 22, 2004 at 05:35:07PM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 21, 2004 at 12:41:04AM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > > It is precisely because we all agree on the importance of releasing
> > > sarge soon that we have
17 matches
Mail list logo
