On Thu, Aug 31, 2006 at 09:21:12AM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > 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.
Sure, its disregarding the SC, and furthermore, disregarding the last of the three pre-sarge GRs which granted an exception only for sarge and not etch. > 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. It still is a 3:1 issue, but Manoj will be the one knowing best about this. > 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. Indeed. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
