-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On 25-Jan-99 David Welton wrote: > Would it be prudent at this juncture to start discussing why we will > vote against this? Or do people whish to finalize the format before > we discuss why we think it should be voted down? Ummm... I suppose you could if you want to.. but I'd rather wait, personally, until the format has been finalized... I'll probably ignore any statment that was blatant "absolute no" and not "maybe, just maybe if" until after the formal proposal... There are enough people who *do* want the change that I think the vote would be benificial if, for no other reason, than to settle the issue once and for all so I'd rather put my energy into getting to that vote, first, before spending any on convincing people to vote for or against it when it's done. ========================================================================= * http://benham.net/index.html <>< * * -------------------- * -----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK----- ---------------* * Darren Benham * Version: 3.1 * * <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * GCS d+(-) s:+ a29 C++$ UL++>++++ P+++$ L++>++++* * KC7YAQ * E? W+++$ N+(-) o? K- w+++$(--) O M-- V- PS-- * * Debian Developer * PE++ Y++ PGP++ t+ 5 X R+ !tv b++++ DI+++ D++ * * <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * G++>G+++ e h+ r* y+ * * -------------------- * ------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------ ---------------* ========================================================================= -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3a Charset: noconv iQCVAwUBNqw3f7bps1lIfUYBAQEZFwP6A7s96I8EYxUKwrb9IMD39RuFTG9hHopa dJB4+ofj7mn2VaGq3wa/vB1xA3hb29BlgrzBHKgDVHlK4CJ+PY7HO/fmjt4HfY1F hKDNH5bs7KgZVbiCNCpxZ+M9mMPsE0dGnOAHo4bBKC5sh0XntTxlwU6+kQxgIB3P PlP/Emeu0sE= =pJTV -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
