On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 01:06:21PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote: > On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 08:22:58AM +0100, Robert Millan wrote: > > You're the Secretary. You're supposed to give answers, not speculation. If > > the ballot was ambigous, or confusing, it is YOUR responsibility. > > It has to be said that at least I am taking YOU personally responsable > for a lot of why the ballot was ambigous as well, not least to the fact > you named your proposal "Reaffirm the Social Contract", i.e. SC-trolling > the rest of the project not in line with your opinion.
I keep hearing this "SC is not binding" story, as if repeating it lots of times made it true, but fact is that the project already rejected option 4 which is the one that represents this line of reasoning. If you're so serious about it, I challenge you to propose it as a separate vote. -- Robert Millan The DRM opt-in fallacy: "Your data belongs to us. We will decide when (and how) you may access your data; but nobody's threatening your freedom: we still allow you to remove your data and not access it at all." -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
