Hi,
>>"Buddha" == Buddha Buck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Buddha> I would still like some statement to be made in regards to
Buddha> amendments to the amendments. I do not mind the "informal"
Buddha> amendment style that was discussed (author listens to
Buddha> discussion, and submits an amended proposal, based on the
Buddha> issues raised in the discussion), but I would like to see
Buddha> some minimal time for debate over an amended amendment. If a
Buddha> new version is released too close to the deadline, there may
Buddha> not be enough time for interested developers to review it
Buddha> before the close of discussion. I don't see this as a major
Buddha> problem, but I'd still like to see it dealt with.
I hope that is that is the case, the people in the group have
the judgement to extend the period of discussion. Or else, one may
raise a formal objection that would cause a vote to be taken, and
the time taken to set up the mechanism can be used for discussion.
I hope that we are level headed enough not to require a
mandated minimum time limit after the last change; anything that
really does require that is probably to contentous to be resolved in
the informal manner in which the policy mailing lists work; they
should really be going to the General Resolution protocol decreed by
the constitution.
manoj
--
"Oh dear, I think you'll find reality's on the blink again." Marvin
The Paranoid Android
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://www.datasync.com/%7Esrivasta/>
Key C7261095 fingerprint = CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
