On Wed, 10 Jun 2009, Paul VanKoughnett wrote: > On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 12:21 PM, Kerim Aydin<ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote: >> >> On Wed, 10 Jun 2009, Paul VanKoughnett wrote: >>> I join this pledge. Sorry, G. >> >> Actually, with all the annoying support messages it's not such a bad >> temporary solution come to think of it; what I'm objecting to is the >> Yally's accompanying suggestion that we should just get rid of >> distributability altogether (after only a one-week trial) rather than >> fixing the support method to something that works. Gee, some things >> do suck in the first implementation. But I thought we were more willing >> to change a bit than that! >> >> And yes, I know that supporting this pledge doesn't automatically mean >> voting for the rollback, but the pledge was associated with the repeal. >> >> -G. > > Okay, what about without objection? If, as you claim, we lack > restraint in our supports and are thus letting in proposals that > shouldn't be distributable, you could just object to said proposals.
Actually, a proposal to do that just had its voting period end! I don't know if it passed, I'm (obviously) hoping it did. It does have the problems you mentioned with an objector holding it up indefinitely... that's why the other method is "pay a note to make it distributable." There's enough currency floating around that if someone is objecting indefinitely, a person can pay (or if broke, ask someone else to pay). The money barrier is enough to make sure that people read things at least twice before paying to distribute it, maybe? -G.
