Manoj Srivastava wrote: > Hi, > >>"Mike" == Mike Goldman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Mike> Given then a choice between automatically moving all docs back > Mike> to /usr/doc or moving all legacy packages to /usr/share/doc, I > Mike> would choose the latter, since this is compliant with FHS which > Mike> is our eventual goal. > > So you have a preference. However, apart from similarily bague > ``forward moving'' vs ``step back'' arguments, you have said little > about this proposal -- certainly little that can be classified as a > technical flaw. > > Mike> Therefore, I formally object to this proposal. > > And yet, you are moving to close all debate on this issue!!! > > Look, people, the guidelines call for a *vote* on > disagreement, and ask for a 75% supermajority. Thus the expectation > was that, at least theoretically, motions could pass with as much as > 24% of the people disagreeing. Yet if everyone keeps jumping in with > technical objections, and grinding all progress on this forum down by > having all proposals killed, I think we need to come up with some > changes. > > Firstly, one needs to emhpasize that formal objections are > only to be used as a means of last resort, and then only if > all other means of reconcilliation have been exhausted. Disagreeing > with a proposal should not be enough. > > I was hoping we don't have to disallow formal objections, or > to restrict them to fatal technical flaws in the proposal, but if > people are going to frivoulously kill all discussons and votes with > them, something has to change. > > manoj > hoping that some of the recent objections shall be withdrawn on their own
I withdraw my formal objection.
