Hi,
>>"Mike" == Mike Goldman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Mike> Given then a choice between automatically moving all docs back
Mike> to /usr/doc or moving all legacy packages to /usr/share/doc, I
Mike> would choose the latter, since this is compliant with FHS which
Mike> is our eventual goal.
So you have a preference. However, apart from similarily bague
``forward moving'' vs ``step back'' arguments, you have said little
about this proposal -- certainly little that can be classified as a
technical flaw.
Mike> Therefore, I formally object to this proposal.
And yet, you are moving to close all debate on this issue!!!
Look, people, the guidelines call for a *vote* on
disagreement, and ask for a 75% supermajority. Thus the expectation
was that, at least theoretically, motions could pass with as much as
24% of the people disagreeing. Yet if everyone keeps jumping in with
technical objections, and grinding all progress on this forum down by
having all proposals killed, I think we need to come up with some
changes.
Firstly, one needs to emhpasize that formal objections are
only to be used as a means of last resort, and then only if
all other means of reconcilliation have been exhausted. Disagreeing
with a proposal should not be enough.
I was hoping we don't have to disallow formal objections, or
to restrict them to fatal technical flaws in the proposal, but if
people are going to frivoulously kill all discussons and votes with
them, something has to change.
manoj
hoping that some of the recent objections shall be withdrawn on their own
--
I would like the government to do all it can to mitigate, then, in
understanding, in mutuality of interest, in concern for the common
good, our tasks will be solved. Warren G. Harding
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
Key C7261095 fingerprint = CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
