On Sun, 02 Dec 2007, Anthony Towns wrote: > On Fri, Nov 30, 2007 at 06:40:36PM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote: > > Deciding that an issue isn't important enough to make a decision > > requires making some sort of decision. > > No it doesn't, it just requires not noticing an issue -- eg, by it > not being brought to the tech ctte's attention at all (most > decisions in Debian), or by the tech ctte missing it when it is > (429761, 439006), or by the tech ctte leaving it lie (436096).
These are all recent bugs, so presumably they can raised again by whoever thought originally that they were important. > That's exactly wrong for the committee -- we should be around to > work on hard problems, and we shouldn't be spending any time at all > on the easy ones, which maintainers are already dealing with. I don't think the current case is an example of the committee looking for problems to resolve on it's own. Someone disagreed with the maintainer, and brought the issue to the tech-ctte. The tech-ctte makes a decision, either by deciding to override, not override, FDing to death, or ignoring entirely, the latter three being largely the same outcome. Furthermore, it seems counterproductive to complain about a decision on a trivial issue being a waste of time by prolonging the discussion of a trivial issue. [From my seat in the stands, this is also what appears to have occured in whatever remains for the RFC 3484 decision as well... but perhaps that's merely a case of incomplete communication.] Don Armstrong -- We were at a chinese resturant. He was yelling at the waitress because there was a typo in his fortune cookie. -- hugh macleod http://www.gapingvoid.com/batch31.php http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
