Kurt Roeckx wrote:
On Fri, May 01, 2009 at 03:52:47PM +0200, Luk Claes wrote:
Charles Plessy wrote:
There were discussions started on the supermajority requirement, that
unfortunately were unconclusive ([email protected]),
http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2009/03/msg00003.html
Nevertheless, wouldn't it be safer to first resolve this issue, while keeping as
a goal to address the firmware question early in the release cycle?
Well sponsors of the proposals have till Sunday to get it to vote
AFAICS. Personally I would not mind to have a vote for this first and I
won't start the process for a firmware vote before the vote about
supermajority is either dropped (when no sponsor reacts) or voted on...
Current vote that is in the process of being withdrawn has nothing
to do with the supermajority requirement. It's about sponsorship
requirements.
The supermajority is about things like who decideds if something
needs 3:1 supermajority if it's not clear.
Ah right, too much things to vote on :-)
Well, I think the sponsorships requirement vote that is currently being
in process should first be dealt with (either dropped or voted on) first.
Continuing discussions about the supermajority requirements before going
to the firmware is probably not a bad idea.
Cheers
Luk
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
