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 cry foul, there being, > after all, no constitutional basis for the cancellation of a vote which > has already entered the voting period - in any case not unilaterally by > the (acting) secretary.
I already said, that I don't consider the ballot to be flawed. Whether I'd have complained or not, I don't even know myself. But the important thing is, that although both events would have the same result, cancelling the vote is much better because it's much more sincere, and it lets the developers know that something went seriously wrong. OTOH, reinterpreting the vote into something else is much harder to notice. 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. Does it say the RT intended to release with the kernel packages currently in the archive? Well, yes. Does it say anything else about what they intended? Not really. Now suppose you know first-hand what the RT intends. Does the phrase mean the vote endorses that? Well, depends a lot on what the Secretary knows about the RT intentions and doesn't tell us in this mail, doesn't it? -- 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 [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
