Hi,
This is not a personal attack on Antti-Juhani, but just
happens to be the latest example of a distressing trend that is
gaining popularity in this group, which, unless moderated, shall
nullify the efficacy of an informal policy building mechanism.
>>"Antti-Juhani" == Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Antti-Juhani> I will formally object to any proposal which intends to
Antti-Juhani> introduce policy that should not be followed.
I think I am beginning to think that the formal objection
clause is a mistake. Here you are, cutting off any discussion on
this, no effort to seek a compromise, just a flat, uncompromising
ultimatum that shall kill any move on this matter just because you
disagree.
If everyone moves to formal objections so easily, the policy
mechanism is rendered useless, and we shall have to investigate other
methods of getting work done. A formal objection was meant to be a
mechanism of a lst resort, which this is not, since the proposal has
not even been seconded, and there is ample time to seek a consensus
solution.
One should also realize that in a large group like this not
all people always get their way. If we can live with that, and accept
that in order to get things done we may need to go with less than
optimum solutions, this informal method may still work.
Maybe we should require that a formal objection should need 5
seconds, and a formal objection automatically sends the proposal to
the tech ctte for resolution? The ctte could always refuse to take
action, but they also choose to refute the objection, and return the
matter to supermajority vote.
manoj
--
Marriage is an institution in which two undertake to become one, and
one undertakes to become nothing.
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
Key C7261095 fingerprint = CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
