[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) schrieb: > Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> That was because the voters were 20% of the developers, as you well >> know. I'm also hoping that we've engaged enough of the developers that >> we might get a representative vote this time. > > I see. Is that what the Constitution says? If you don't like who > won, then just keep proposing GRs, claiming that not enough people > voted last time? When you lose a vote, raise as big a stink as > possible and have more votes? You really think this is a good > procedure?
It's a bad procedure. But that wasn't the question, AFAIS. The statement in question was [you] > [hamish] > > 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. And I think that in fact we have a chance that the current GR will make an end, whereas the previous just started all this. I don't think that the low number of voters are the reason why the consequences of the previous GR weren't accepted by many. Rather I think that the low vote count, and the non-acceptance have a common reason: The fact that the consequences of the change where unforeseen, obviously both by many non-voters and by some of the proposers/seconders. I think it is quite clear now what the consequences of (at least most of) the options on the ballot will be, and that this vote *does* matter (at least if you're interested in Debian being free software and serving it's users well, which every DD should). Therefore I hope that the result will settle things, and that people will start working and cease discussion. Regards, Frank -- Frank Küster, Biozentrum der Univ. Basel Abt. Biophysikalische Chemie
