-vote@ discussions on DFSG violations

There have been 470 mails during the last month in the DFSG violations threads on -vote@, but only 10 posters have contributed more than 10 mails so far:

85 Robert Millan
51 Manoj Srivastava
18 Pierre Habouzit
18 Josselin Mouette
16 Thomas Bushnell BSG
14 Stephen Gran
13 Frans Pop
13 Ean Schuessler
13 Adeodato Simo
12 Russ Allbery

Is someone working on a summary of the discussions? I would really hate it if we were asked to vote on this, with a “for details, see the -vote@ archives” footnote. (Robert Millan sounds like a perfect candidate for this task :-) )

2 thoughts on “-vote@ discussions on DFSG violations

  1. Am I the only one completely confused about the entire GR? I have no idea how I need to vote to achieve what I want to see happen for Lenny. If the vote does just say “see archives for detail”, I may simply not vote at all. Every new proposal confuses things even more, every sub-thread adds more layers to the existing mess. I don’t read -vote@, I’m only on -devel but unless someone creates a sane summary that everyone can support, it’s probably a lot safer not to vote at all. How anyone not reading either -devel or -vote is expected to make any sense of the GR is completely beyond me. Why do we need so many proposals anyway? Can’t the whole thing be pruned down to 2 or at most 3?

Comments are closed.