On Mon, Nov 03, 2008 at 09:34:47AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote: > Le Mon, Nov 03, 2008 at 12:18:11AM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum a écrit : > > > > I'm fine with voting with only the current option on the ballot, but > > that will probably translate in people abstaining because they don't > > agree, neither with the only option, nor with FD (which is the de facto > > "go ahead"). > > I do not think that the only interpretation of a rejected GR is the > contrary of its option(s). For instance, people can vote "Further > Disucssion" because the text suggests that Joerg has the power to > make the decisions he posted, despite they think that he has not.
Yes, but then you have a lot of "clashes" in the reasons why people are voting Further Discussion. I don't see any particular problem with adding clarifying ballots and I do see the benefit. > This said, I still hope that Joerg could send a clarification that what he > presented is not yet an official policy, and that he will follow consensus or > propose changes through a GR. With this we could avoid the current vote. Full ACK. -- Stefano Zacchiroli -*- PhD in Computer Science \ PostDoc @ Univ. Paris 7 [EMAIL PROTECTED],pps.jussieu.fr,debian.org} -<>- http://upsilon.cc/zack/ Dietro un grande uomo c'è sempre /oo\ All one has to do is hit the right uno zaino -- A.Bergonzoni \__/ keys at the right time -- J.S.Bach
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
