On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 16:50, Jonathan Craig <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 9:59 AM, Philip Brown <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 7:03 PM, Jonathan Craig <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 6:16 PM, Philip Brown <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > How does the adjusted vote, as I proposed, impeed "progress"? > > It seems as though the mechanisms, while nearly completely, still have > > a week or two worth of tweaks to make it fully live(?) > > During that time, we could discuss, in parallel, what kind of reviews > > other people may want. > > Or, if no-one else voted for the reviews. just have peace and quiet :) > > If you split the vote across a number of choices then we will end up > with no clear direction. Your trying to ride the coattails of the > automated release proposal and unfairly disrupting that decision. You > need to get out of the way of the first proposal and begin work on > your own proposal. If you had done this to begin with you wouldn't > have lost the last week to arguments with the automated release > process. > if you want to have a fair result even if you have similar possibilities in the selection, one might consider the debian method of voting, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloneproof_Schwartz_Sequential_Dropping. otherwise opencsw will be called thunderbay, not lakehead :) rupert.
_______________________________________________ maintainers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.opencsw.org/mailman/listinfo/maintainers .:: This mailing list's archive is public. ::.
