* Raul Miller ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040522 21:10]: > On Sat, May 22, 2004 at 07:11:57PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote: > > In this particular case, the delegate refuses to share his > > interpretation of the proposed texts, meaning that the developers have > > no idea about which of the proposals will actually cause him to > > consider himself overridden.
> There seems to be some opinion that the social contract forbids > the release policy desired by the people wishing to overrule the > delegate in question. > > Also, the people who disagree with this have been remarkably shy in > expressing their reasoning. [And rather vocal on tangential issues.] I'm one of the people who consider that the current SC allows to release sarge as is (of course after fixing the open technical issues, e.g. the RC-bugs). However, as a strong believer in democratic principles, I still consider that it would be good to have a 3:1-majority to do this decision. And, IMHO there are enough drafts on the market that there is no need to do another one. Cheers, Andi -- http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/ PGP 1024/89FB5CE5 DC F1 85 6D A6 45 9C 0F 3B BE F1 D0 C5 D1 D9 0C -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
