***BOGO*** Re: call for seconds: on firmware

[Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Sun, Nov 16 2008, Steve Langasek wrote:

> On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 11:42:19AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>>         I do not think throwing options out because they are not of a
>>  narrow and limited scope is right. The proposer and sponsors can
>>  withdraw them, if they think the scope is too broad for the problem at
>>  hand. No one else should be removing them from consideration as a
>>  solution to the Lenny issue.
>
> The proposers and sponsors of option 5 didn't propose this as an amendment
> to the current GR.  Why should they have to *withdraw* the proposal in order
> to get it considered separately at a later time?

        They only need to do so to prevent it from being on the current
 ballot.  I think it would be a pity of any of the 6 options is
 withdrawn, since any of them could lend us relief from the current mess
 wrt Lenny release.

        As to future votes, anyone may propose a failed option on any
 vote for a fresh look anytime they so desire.

        manoj
-- 
Our business is run on trust.  We trust you will pay in advance.
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@xxxxxxxxxx> <http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/>  
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx