On Sat, Jan 03, 2009 at 05:27:26PM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
On Sat, 03 Jan 2009, Chris Waters wrote:
On Fri, Jan 02, 2009 at 09:17:28AM +1100, Ben Finney wrote:
(Don has, after subsequent argument, modified this to “… that
you don't plan on ranking above Further Discussion”.)
Chris Waters xt...@debian.org writes:
And how are we going to police this nonsense? Check the votes
afterwards and sanction someone if they proposed or seconded an
option and then didn't support it with their vote? That's just
stupid.
Indeed, and AFAICT no-one was proposing that. Don's
- Steve Langasek wrote:
Yes, because it's not a supersession of the Foundation Document; it's either
a position statement or an override of a decision by a delegate. Position
statements are not binding; overrides of delegates can only override
decisions that have actually been taken.
This one time, at band camp, Chris Waters said:
I am also offended at the suggestion that ranking FD highly means you
can't accept compromise.
I'm sorry if you feel offended, but that's exactly what FD is supposed
to mean. The only reason to vote FD is if you can't compromise on any
of the
On Sun Jan 04 15:55, Ean Schuessler wrote:
- Steve Langasek wrote:
Yes, because it's not a supersession of the Foundation Document; it's
either
a position statement or an override of a decision by a delegate. Position
statements are not binding; overrides of delegates can only
- Matthew Johnson wrote:
Yes. Come back when Lenny is released (and I'm also keen to see a GR to
clarify all this)
So how about that release Lenny with DFSG violations GR that needs to pass
with 3:1? I bet if it is clear cut that it will pass easily.
After that we can move on to
On Sun, Jan 04, 2009 at 03:55:43PM -0600, Ean Schuessler wrote:
- Steve Langasek wrote:
Yes, because it's not a supersession of the Foundation Document; it's
either
a position statement or an override of a decision by a delegate. Position
statements are not binding; overrides of
On Sun, Jan 04, 2009 at 10:07:51PM +, Stephen Gran wrote:
This one time, at band camp, Chris Waters said:
I am also offended at the suggestion that ranking FD highly means you
can't accept compromise.
I'm sorry if you feel offended, but that's exactly what FD is supposed
to mean. The
Chris Waters xt...@debian.org writes:
So, according to your view of voting, if I actually would prefer
further discussion (meaning that literally, and not with whatever
magical special meaning you think it has on a Debian ballot), but am
still willing to compromise and have opinions about
On Sun, 04 Jan 2009, Chris Waters wrote:
Because not wanting any of the options, but still having (strong)
opinions on which are more and which are less desirable is still a
valid position--one I find myself in frequently IRL.
It's fine to rank options you prefer further discussion to, because
10 matches
Mail list logo
