sm-admin AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Developer Only Discussion List
List archive
- From: Eric Schabell <eschabell AT sourcemage.org>
- To: SM-Admin <sm-admin AT lists.ibiblio.org>, SM-Discuss <sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org>
- Cc:
- Subject: [SM-Admin] Re: [SM-Discuss] license of xfree86
- Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2004 11:45:08 +0100
> I think voting is a good idea. But I do think voting is only useful if
> everyone votes, if the same people who always do the work are also the only
> people doing the voting then that is not a good indication of the
> community's
> or the project's wishes or opinions.
> Voting should be compulsory, you can vote 0 if you don't care either way
> but
> I think that is still important have ALL developers involved.
> The vote on the sm-admin list about delaying the 1.0 release is a good
> example
> of this. As it currently stands, the vote calls for a delayed 1.0 release,
> but only six people have voted. Even if the other twenty developers don't
> care either way, they have to let the few who do care officially know what
> their position is.
>
I agree with Hamish here... let's make sure we have a total vote (but a
time limit for 1.0 voting would be nice, or the delay is by defaulting
over the end of the month!).
The vote here below will be continued on sm-admin, for developers only.
The vote here can continue on discuss to give the developers an idea
what the users think?
Voting:
=======
staying at the current version of xfree86 +1
moving new versions to z-rejected +1
finding/testing new alternatives +1
Voted:
======
Eric Schabel
--
/**
* Eric D. Schabell M.Sc.
* Project Lead Source Mage GNU/Linux
*
* Source Mage : http://www.sourcemage.org
* Shopping : http://www.cafeshops.com/sourcemage
* irc.freenode.net (#sourcemage)
* nick -> erics
**/
-
[SM-Admin] Re: [SM-Discuss] license of xfree86,
Eric Schabell, 02/21/2004
-
Re: [SM-Admin] Re: [SM-Discuss] license of xfree86,
Arwed von Merkatz, 02/21/2004
-
Re: [SM-Admin] Re: [SM-Discuss] license of xfree86,
Eric Sandall, 02/21/2004
- Re: [SM-Admin] Re: [SM-Discuss] license of xfree86, Jason Flatt, 02/21/2004
-
Re: [SM-Admin] Re: [SM-Discuss] license of xfree86,
Jason Flatt, 02/21/2004
-
Re: [SM-Admin] Re: [SM-Discuss] license of xfree86,
Jose Bernardo Silva, 02/21/2004
- Re: [SM-Admin] Re: [SM-Discuss] license of xfree86, Robert Helgesson, 02/22/2004
-
Re: [SM-Admin] Re: [SM-Discuss] license of xfree86,
Ladislav Hagara, 02/23/2004
- Re: [SM-Admin] Re: [SM-Discuss] license of xfree86, Unet, 02/23/2004
-
Re: [SM-Admin] Re: [SM-Discuss] license of xfree86,
Jose Bernardo Silva, 02/21/2004
-
Re: [SM-Admin] Re: [SM-Discuss] license of xfree86,
Eric Sandall, 02/21/2004
-
Re: [SM-Admin] Re: [SM-Discuss] license of xfree86,
Hamish Greig, 02/21/2004
- Re: [SM-Admin] Re: [SM-Discuss] license of xfree86, Andrew, 02/21/2004
-
Re: [SM-Admin] Re: [SM-Discuss] license of xfree86,
Arwed von Merkatz, 02/21/2004
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.