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 proposed so many paths to reaching this goal. > > > This is an effort to build consensus, not a lack of consensus on our > > > part. Debian is a large community, and it's not easy to know what the > > > outcome of such a vote will be before it happens. The range of ballot > > > options has been provided partly in the hope that at least *one* among > > > these options will receive the necessary support from developers and > > > will put us back on the road to releasing sarge. > > > > 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 ctte had made clear to me that none of the > > ballot options will have positive effect on the release of sarge, making > > the exercise rather pointless, the reason being, all the options focus > > on the previous SC change and side-step the real issue which is the > > change of the release policy. I see no evidence that any changes of the > > SC will imply change in the release policy allowing to release sarge > > sooner. > > Can you please refer me to the discussions in question? As far as I can > tell, both Steve and I (release assistants) have an entirely different > impression, and between us we proposed some of the options on the > ballot.
For example: <http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/05/msg00220.html> <http://lists.debian.org/debian-ctte/2004/06/msg00002.html> <http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/05/msg00396.html> Cheers, -- Bill. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Imagine a large red swirl here. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
