Hi, On Wed, 30 Aug 2006, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: > Further, because this amounts to a decision to disregard the SC, it > should require a 3:1 majority.
It's not disregarding the SC, it's clarifying the fact that we need more time to create the proper infrastructure that will allow us to support the hardware *and* to respect our principles. So I don't think it's a 3:1 issue. We're not changing our goals, only clarifying the timeline and acknowledging that the etch timeframe is too short for us to reach this goal. Being a volunteer project, we can't guarantee that this problem won't arise again with etch+1, but I hope that all people who have expressed concerns here, will help the kernel/d-i team and make it a reality for etch+1. Cheers, -- Raphaël Hertzog Premier livre français sur Debian GNU/Linux : http://www.ouaza.com/livre/admin-debian/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
