On Tue, 23 Apr 2013, omd wrote: > On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 12:29 PM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote: > > I don't think this solves the problem. I think the problem is people > > putting in switches without thinking about tracking, the requirement > > to add "untracked" doesn't help. Also, I'm nervous about having > > untracked switches in general. > > Well, in this case it doesn't seem to be useful to track the adoption > index and chamber of past proposals, but I suppose we could have the > proposals and decisions cease to exist.
Ah of course, past proposals. I think we've had problems in the past about the persistence of proposals indefinitely and what that means. Not sure neutering their existence breaks precedents or just doesn't matter...?
