BEGIN:VCALENDAR
PRODID:-//Google Inc//Google Calendar 70.9054//EN
VERSION:2.0
CALSCALE:GREGORIAN
METHOD:REQUEST
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;VALUE=DATE:20091127
DTEND;VALUE=DATE:20091128
DTSTAMP:20091127T120255Z
ORGANIZER;CN=BrOffice.org - Eventos:mailto:c1lp1q1iv9s2p6of0pi5g38...@group
Claudio Filho filh...@gmail.com writes:
Você foi convidado para o seguinte evento.
Título: Results of the Lenny release GR
I've been reminded that as Acting Secretary I should officially announce the
results of the recent vote. My apologies for the delay!
In case anyone is confused
On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 10:34:41PM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
He's doing more than interpret the results. He claims they are ambigous,
and that his interpretation is based on his speculation on what he thinks
the developers want.
No, instead of whining and acusing people you should try to
On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 10:37:28PM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 09:26:20PM +, Robert Millan wrote:
We're having a serious discussion, and you guys are adding noise. If you
want to make jokes, please at least start a separate thread.
...
That goes for you, too.
On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 11:35:22AM +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
How about you going elsewhere until Lenny is released, then coming back
as soon as that happens and start working on what is left to fix then?
(Not right before a release, right after a release for a change.)
A VERY BIG +1
--
Robert Millan r...@aybabtu.com wrote:
On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 07:13:57PM +0100, Michael Goetze wrote:
Robert Millan wrote:
- Even if there's a general perception that everyone agrees not to delay
Lenny at all costs, this should definitely be voted on and sanctioned.
Not doing so
Robert Millan writes (Re: Results of the Lenny release GR):
Actually, I accept the outcome of the last vote. I don't like that we made
an exception for firmware, but the developers chose to make one so there's no
point in arguing about it.
On the other hand, it appears that the Secretary
Adeodato Simó wrote:
* Robert Millan [Sun, 11 Jan 2009 08:22:58 +0100]:
Currently, the only solution I see is that we ask the developers what they
think, and hold another vote.
Yes, I'm realizing myself there is not going to be another way. :-(
Proposal: hand Robert Millan a nice
Robert Millan wrote:
OTOH, if you just tell me to go elsewhere, I'm sorry but I don't want to
look the other way while the project destroys its reputation for having a
commitment to freedom, a democratic system and a set of principles.
The only one who works on destroying the project at the
r...@aybabtu.com (Robert Millan) writes:
So, what I think would be the honest approach to this problem, is for you to
either announce that your interpretation is the way it is because the ballot
was flawed ...
In my preamble to the second call for votes,
On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 08:37:06AM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
I know you didn't explicitly request being appointed Secretary; it sort of
happened by accident, but you had the opportunity to refuse all the time,
so I must take it that you accept it, at least temporarily.
This is not true.
On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 12:42:12AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 08:37:06AM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
I know you didn't explicitly request being appointed Secretary; it sort of
happened by accident, but you had the opportunity to refuse all the time,
so I must take
Robert,
I'm not a DD but I have been watching the lists and I think you are
flogging a dead horse, one that has been buried in fact. Choose your
battles and you'll have more good will when you make constructive
proposal and actions post-lenny.
As for trying to bully people about consitution and
On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 10:17:52AM -0600, Ean Schuessler wrote:
- Robert Millan wrote:
The majority of developers voted to make an exception for firmware in
Lenny. They did NOT vote to empower the Release Team to make exceptions
as they see fit. Results of GR 2008/003 are crystal
On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 01:12:24AM -0700, Bdale Garbee wrote:
r...@aybabtu.com (Robert Millan) writes:
So, what I think would be the honest approach to this problem, is for you to
either announce that your interpretation is the way it is because the ballot
was flawed ...
In my preamble
On Mon Jan 12 18:38, Robert Millan wrote:
Agreed. Then again, even if Manoj was rightfully appliing super-majority
requirements (which I think he was), it has become clear that, in general,
such requirements are not politicaly sustainable. And in practice they
don't exist anymore, anyway.
Robert Millan wrote:
- Even if there's a general perception that everyone agrees not to delay
Lenny at all costs, this should definitely be voted on and sanctioned.
Not doing so creates a very bad precedent.
You think everyone must be voted on? What exactly do you think these
On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 07:13:57PM +0100, Michael Goetze wrote:
Robert Millan wrote:
- Even if there's a general perception that everyone agrees not to delay
Lenny at all costs, this should definitely be voted on and sanctioned.
Not doing so creates a very bad precedent.
You
Robert Millan dijo [Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 08:22:58AM +0100]:
(...)
You're the Secretary. You're supposed to give answers, not speculation. If
the ballot was ambigous, or confusing, it is YOUR responsibility. The
way results stand, they say we make an exception for firmware. They don't
say
On Mon Jan 12 19:34, Robert Millan wrote:
On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 07:13:57PM +0100, Michael Goetze wrote:
Robert Millan wrote:
- Even if there's a general perception that everyone agrees not
to delay Lenny at all costs, this should definitely be voted on
and sanctioned. Not
On Sun, 2009-01-11 at 10:32 +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
So, I think you made a mistake, a very serious one, and when asked about it,
your explanation is completely unsatisfactory. How do we solve this?
Currently, the only solution I see is that we ask the developers what they
think, and
On Sun, 2009-01-11 at 11:35 +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
Do you have any other idea in mind?
Btw, Joerg, that goes for you too. If you have something constructive to
say,
this would be a good time.
How about you going elsewhere until Lenny is released, then coming back
as soon as
On Sun, 2009-01-11 at 10:44 -0700, Bdale Garbee wrote:
That's why I think the main outcome of this ballot was an assertion of
desire by the voters that we release Lenny.
Actually, I ranked #1 first, and yet, I have a desire that we release
Lenny. However, I don't want a bad release, I want a
On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 08:52:13PM +, Matthew Johnson wrote:
On Mon Jan 12 19:34, Robert Millan wrote:
On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 07:13:57PM +0100, Michael Goetze wrote:
Robert Millan wrote:
- Even if there's a general perception that everyone agrees not
to delay Lenny at all
On Sun, 2009-01-11 at 21:07 +0100, Frank Küster wrote:
Robert Millan r...@aybabtu.com wrote:
4- Bugs which are trivial to fix, such as #459705 (just remove a text
file),
#483217 (only affects optional functionality that could be removed
according to the maintainer)
Of
On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 02:13:59PM +, Matthew Vernon wrote:
Robert Millan r...@aybabtu.com writes:
I think you mean both option 3 and 4 ranked above FD. I read that as
I don't like these options, but if there's no choice, I prefer them over
the ambiguity of not making any explicit
On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 09:07:12PM +0100, Frank Küster wrote:
Robert Millan r...@aybabtu.com wrote:
4- Bugs which are trivial to fix, such as #459705 (just remove a text
file),
#483217 (only affects optional functionality that could be removed
according to the maintainer)
On Mon Jan 12 22:07, Robert Millan wrote:
I find this reasonable, in general, for minor issues. But it's worth noting
that in this occasion, the developers didn't feel it was necessary to delegate
this responsibility. If they did, they'd have voted for option 4.
They did vote for option 4,
On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 04:41:51PM +, Steve McIntyre wrote:
Robert, I appreciate that you believe you're doing the right thing
here, but attempting to continue this discussion right now, just after
the first vote that has already delayed Lenny, is not going to help
you or anybody.
I don't
On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 05:17:33PM +, Stephen Gran wrote:
This one time, at band camp, Steve McIntyre said:
If things go much further we'll end up with enough seconds to force a
vote to hand Robert Millan a nice cup of STFU. I'm hoping that's not
what anybody actually wants, but I can
On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 09:25:37AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
Ben Finney ben+deb...@benfinney.id.au writes:
Though there seem to be a number of people vocally wishing Robert
would go away or the like, I have yet to see any substantive response
to the questions he's raised in this thread.
On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 09:26:20PM +, Robert Millan wrote:
On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 05:17:33PM +, Stephen Gran wrote:
This one time, at band camp, Steve McIntyre said:
If things go much further we'll end up with enough seconds to force a
vote to hand Robert Millan a nice cup of
On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 10:00:02AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
[...] Robert's constitutional interpretation is not
going to be adopted at present.
There's nothing to be adopted. The project as a whole thinks of the Social
Contract as a binding document. Having a vocal minority disagree with
On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 06:42:12PM +0200, Kalle Kivimaa wrote:
Ean Schuessler e...@brainfood.com writes:
Ironically, Bdale *is* warping the results of the vote and applying
an editorial voice to the interpretation of the results.
Umm, why shouldn't Bdale have his opinion about the results?
On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 10:30:02PM +0100, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 09:26:20PM +, Robert Millan wrote:
On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 05:17:33PM +, Stephen Gran wrote:
This one time, at band camp, Steve McIntyre said:
If things go much further we'll end up with
On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 05:47:00PM +, Matthew Johnson wrote:
On Mon Jan 12 18:38, Robert Millan wrote:
Agreed. Then again, even if Manoj was rightfully appliing super-majority
requirements (which I think he was), it has become clear that, in general,
such requirements are not
On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 09:14:27PM +, Matthew Johnson wrote:
On Mon Jan 12 22:07, Robert Millan wrote:
I find this reasonable, in general, for minor issues. But it's worth noting
that in this occasion, the developers didn't feel it was necessary to
delegate
this responsibility. If
Robert Millan r...@aybabtu.com writes:
On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 09:25:37AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
I don't feel the urge to constantly repeat it, but since I'm sending
the mail anyway: the release team made a delegate decision. That
decision was not overridden. Hence, the release
On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 12:42:12AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 08:37:06AM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
I know you didn't explicitly request being appointed Secretary; it sort of
happened by accident, but you had the opportunity to refuse all the time,
so I must take
On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 04:12:57AM -0500, Daniel Dickinson wrote:
As for trying to bully people about consitution and the social contract
et al, I think you need to remember that the Debian Project is a
concept not an incorporated (or otherwise formally recognized by any
government as an
Robert Millan wrote:
This is far from what one would expect the Secretary to do. If results are
really ambigous, or flawed in any way, what he should do is cancel the vote.
And I'm sure you would have been the first one to cry foul, there being,
after all, no constitutional basis for the
This one time, at band camp, Robert Millan said:
On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 09:14:27PM +, Matthew Johnson wrote:
On Mon Jan 12 22:07, Robert Millan wrote:
I find this reasonable, in general, for minor issues. But it's worth
noting
that in this occasion, the developers didn't feel it
On Monday 12 January 2009, Robert Millan wrote:
Nope. You only got that impression because the ones supporting this
interpretation are the ones making the most noise.
Could you please count the number of your posts and compare that to the
number of posts from anybody else?
Could you also
On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 01:45:04PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
As I said in a separate mail, the developers just discredited this line of
reasoning by ranking option 2 above option 4.
I disagree completely.
The fact that more people preferred 2 to 4 in this vote does not change
the
On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 10:52:04PM +0100, Michael Goetze wrote:
Robert Millan wrote:
This is far from what one would expect the Secretary to do. If results are
really ambigous, or flawed in any way, what he should do is cancel the
vote.
And I'm sure you would have been the first one to
Robert Millan r...@aybabtu.com writes:
On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 01:45:04PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
The fact that more people preferred 2 to 4 in this vote does not change
the fact that the release team is currently empowered to interpret the
DFSG and SC in their own work. That's what the
Robert Millan r...@aybabtu.com (12/01/2009):
And I lost count on how many times I repeated that, but will do as
long as necessary.
We don't need that kind of behaviour *again*.
Mraw,
KiBi.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 09:54:43PM +, Stephen Gran wrote:
This one time, at band camp, Robert Millan said:
On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 09:14:27PM +, Matthew Johnson wrote:
On Mon Jan 12 22:07, Robert Millan wrote:
I find this reasonable, in general, for minor issues. But it's worth
Robert Millan wrote:
Take the exact wording:
This result means that the Debian Lenny release can proceed as the
release team has intended, with the kernel packages currently in the
archive.
and carefully analize this phrase.
I think you are definitely over-anal-izing the situation.
[please don't CC me to emails to debian-vote]
Robert Millan r...@aybabtu.com writes:
On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 02:13:59PM +, Matthew Vernon wrote:
Robert Millan r...@aybabtu.com writes:
I think you mean both option 3 and 4 ranked above FD. I read that as
I don't like these options,
On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 08:37:06AM +0100, Robert Millan 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.
Bdale,
After
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 04:13:26PM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
Please, could you send a new message clarifiing the situation, and your
judgement as Secretary?
While this GR was still in the discussion period, Manoj posted
an analysis of what each option meant; and he also judged that
option 5
On Mon, 12 Jan 2009, Robert Millan wrote:
This is one of the reasons why the vote was flawed;
Again, if the vote was flawed (I don't think it was, but if the Secretary
considers it flawed), the right thing would be to cancel it.
The constitution doesn't explicitely allow a vote to be
So, I think you made a mistake, a very serious one, and when asked about it,
your explanation is completely unsatisfactory. How do we solve this?
Currently, the only solution I see is that we ask the developers what they
think, and hold another vote. Do you have any other idea in mind?
How
On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 10:32:10AM +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
So, I think you made a mistake, a very serious one, and when asked about it,
your explanation is completely unsatisfactory. How do we solve this?
Currently, the only solution I see is that we ask the developers what they
On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 10:32:10AM +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
Do you have any other idea in mind?
Btw, Joerg, that goes for you too. If you have something constructive to say,
this would be a good time.
--
Robert Millan
The DRM opt-in fallacy: Your data belongs to us. We will decide when
Do you have any other idea in mind?
Btw, Joerg, that goes for you too. If you have something constructive to say,
this would be a good time.
How about you going elsewhere until Lenny is released, then coming back
as soon as that happens and start working on what is left to fix then?
(Not
On Sun Jan 11 10:56, Robert Millan wrote:
On the other hand, it appears that the Secretary, the DPL and the Release Team
don't like that we made an exception ONLY for firmware. As per your reply I
will assume you're also in that list.
I will note there was a simple majority in favour of
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
On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 11:03:45AM +, Matthew Johnson wrote:
On Sun Jan 11 10:56, Robert Millan wrote:
On the other hand, it appears that the Secretary, the DPL and the Release
Team
don't like that we made an exception ONLY for firmware. As per your reply I
will assume you're also
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
On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 11:35:22AM +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
Do you have any other idea in mind?
Btw, Joerg, that goes for you too. If you have something constructive to
say,
this would be a good time.
How about you going elsewhere until Lenny is released, then coming back
as
On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 01:14:08PM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 11:03:45AM +, Matthew Johnson wrote:
On Sun Jan 11 10:56, Robert Millan wrote:
On the other hand, it appears that the Secretary, the DPL and the Release
Team
don't like that we made an exception
* Robert Millan [Sun, 11 Jan 2009 08:22:58 +0100]:
Currently, the only solution I see is that we ask the developers what they
think, and hold another vote.
Yes, I'm realizing myself there is not going to be another way. :-(
Proposal: hand Robert Millan a nice cup of STFU.
--
Adeodato
This one time, at band camp, Adeodato Simó said:
* Robert Millan [Sun, 11 Jan 2009 08:22:58 +0100]:
Currently, the only solution I see is that we ask the developers what they
think, and hold another vote.
Yes, I'm realizing myself there is not going to be another way. :-(
Adeodato Simó d...@net.com.org.es writes:
* Robert Millan [Sun, 11 Jan 2009 08:22:58 +0100]:
Currently, the only solution I see is that we ask the developers
what they think, and hold another vote.
Yes, I'm realizing myself there is not going to be another way. :-(
Proposal: hand
Ben Finney ben+deb...@benfinney.id.au writes:
Though there seem to be a number of people vocally wishing Robert
would go away or the like, I have yet to see any substantive
response to the questions he's raised in this thread.
My apologies: the current acting Secretary has, indeed, been
Robert Millan r...@aybabtu.com writes:
I think you mean both option 3 and 4 ranked above FD. I read that as
I don't like these options, but if there's no choice, I prefer them over
the ambiguity of not making any explicit decision.
If one doesn't like an option, one ranks FD above it.
On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 02:22:44PM +, Ben Finney wrote:
Ben Finney ben+deb...@benfinney.id.au writes:
Though there seem to be a number of people vocally wishing Robert
would go away or the like, I have yet to see any substantive
response to the questions he's raised in this thread.
Proposal: hand Robert Millan a nice cup of STFU.
Seconded.
+1, seconded too.
Michael
--
Michael Meskes
Michael at Fam-Meskes dot De, Michael at Meskes dot (De|Com|Net|Org)
Michael at BorussiaFan dot De, Meskes at (Debian|Postgresql) dot Org
ICQ: 179140304, AIM/Yahoo: michaelmeskes,
- Robert Millan wrote:
The majority of developers voted to make an exception for firmware in
Lenny. They did NOT vote to empower the Release Team to make exceptions
as they see fit. Results of GR 2008/003 are crystal clear about this.
Unfortunately, nothing can be crystal clear about
Ean Schuessler e...@brainfood.com writes:
Ironically, Bdale *is* warping the results of the vote and applying
an editorial voice to the interpretation of the results.
Umm, why shouldn't Bdale have his opinion about the results? Nowhere
does it say that the (acting) Secretary is the authority to
On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 03:58:03PM +0100, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 02:22:44PM +, Ben Finney wrote:
Ben Finney ben+deb...@benfinney.id.au writes:
Though there seem to be a number of people vocally wishing Robert
would go away or the like, I have yet to see any
- Kalle Kivimaa wrote:
Umm, why shouldn't Bdale have his opinion about the results? Nowhere
does it say that the (acting) Secretary is the authority to
interprete GR results (that's not interpreting the Constitution).
The people who do the interpretation are obviously the release team,
This one time, at band camp, Steve McIntyre said:
If things go much further we'll end up with enough seconds to force a
vote to hand Robert Millan a nice cup of STFU. I'm hoping that's not
what anybody actually wants, but I can also understand why some people
might be feeling that way.
Dato
Ben Finney ben+deb...@benfinney.id.au writes:
Though there seem to be a number of people vocally wishing Robert
would go away or the like, I have yet to see any substantive response
to the questions he's raised in this thread.
I made a substantive response to these points weeks ago. He just
* Stephen Gran [Sun, 11 Jan 2009 17:17:33 +]:
This one time, at band camp, Steve McIntyre said:
If things go much further we'll end up with enough seconds to force a
vote to hand Robert Millan a nice cup of STFU. I'm hoping that's not
what anybody actually wants, but I can also
On Sun January 11 2009 08:17:52 Ean Schuessler wrote:
Ironically, Bdale *is* warping the results of the vote and applying an
editorial voice to the interpretation of the results. I say ironically
because Bdale's actions go far beyond anything Manoj did with regard to
imposing his desires or
- Russ Allbery wrote:
If he wants to stop the release, he needs to propose a GR to override the
delegate decision, and it has to pass. Neither of those things have
happened. Until they do, this is all pointless noise.
Some people cannot just leave well enough alone. Please do not ask
On Sun, 2009-01-11 at 08:22 +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 05:48:33PM -0700, Bdale Garbee wrote:
On Sun, 2009-01-11 at 01:04 +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
What you describe sounds like option 3, or maybe option 4. What is your
opinion on the fact that option 2 defeats
Ean Schuessler e...@brainfood.com writes:
- Russ Allbery wrote:
If he wants to stop the release, he needs to propose a GR to override
the delegate decision, and it has to pass. Neither of those things have
happened. Until they do, this is all pointless noise.
Some people cannot just
On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 01:18:43PM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
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
Robert Millan r...@aybabtu.com wrote:
4- Bugs which are trivial to fix, such as #459705 (just remove a text file),
#483217 (only affects optional functionality that could be removed
according to the maintainer)
Of course it could be removed, and it's technically trivial. The
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.
Bdale,
After sleeping over this, I really think I've been unnecesarily harsh, and
at
On Mon, Jan 05, 2009 at 04:54:25PM -0700, Bdale Garbee wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I've been reminded that as Acting Secretary I should officially announce the
results of the recent vote. My apologies for the delay!
Details of the outcome and how various options
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 09:45:48AM -0700, Bdale Garbee wrote:
It is my opinion that the text of the winning GR option says nothing
explicit about any of the bugs currently tagged lenny-ignore except
those relating to firmware blobs.
However, analysis of the voting results in this and
On Sun, 2009-01-11 at 01:04 +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 09:45:48AM -0700, Bdale Garbee wrote:
However, analysis of the voting results in this and prior GRs relating
to similar issues in prior releases indicates to me that Debian
developers in general would prefer to
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 05:48:33PM -0700, Bdale Garbee wrote:
On Sun, 2009-01-11 at 01:04 +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
What you describe sounds like option 3, or maybe option 4. What is your
opinion on the fact that option 2 defeats both of them?
I'm not sure I agree with your sense of
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I've been reminded that as Acting Secretary I should officially announce the
results of the recent vote. My apologies for the delay!
Details of the outcome and how various options were voted are available at
89 matches
Mail list logo
