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 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. I challenge you to do something useful for the project instead of dragging us down with voting nonsense. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/ [email protected] [email protected] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
