Hi,
>>"Antti-Juhani" == Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Antti-Juhani> On Thu, Jul 29, 1999 at 01:39:14PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> 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.
Antti-Juhani> I was not aware that a formal objection is a veto
Then you have not being paying attention to this list. 5
formal objections shot down a proposal less than a week ago.
Antti-Juhani> (let's face it, the policy guidelines are poorly
Antti-Juhani> worded,
You are most welcome to suggest more exemplerary wwording.
Antti-Juhani> as they read like a proposal, with "perhaps we
Antti-Juhani> should"'s everywhere and with little structure to help
Antti-Juhani> digesting the thing).
The document was a proposal for *informal* guidelines. It is
not a standsard, it is not policy, it is commonly accepted procedures
for handling a geographically diverse group of *co-operating* people.
Without a will to work together, and reach compromise
solution, and at least a best effort try at consensus building, this
can never work.
Antti-Juhani> I agree such a clause is bad. I was more thinking of
Antti-Juhani> the "dissenting opinion" convention used in formal
Antti-Juhani> meetings, where the record will show that I was against
Antti-Juhani> such a move, should the motion pass anyway.
Firstly, if you are thinking "dissenting opinion", then state
it so. Do not subvert a last resort protocol for that. Secondly, this
is not a formal process at all. This is an informal process between
people who are trying to get something done.
I wish that people who can't come to the table in a spirit of
cooperation please reconsider,
Antti-Juhani> My position on the original matter is unchanged.
Antti-Juhani> Things one must not do must not be sanctioned by
Antti-Juhani> policy: I must be able to trust the policy documents to
Antti-Juhani> be an accurate description of what I can and should do.
That does sound reasonable. However, the policy document can
say "Blah is the long term goal, but, in the short term, pending a
means of a gradual transition, we shall do foo instead".
This should add to policy what the long term goal is, and also
mention that it is not to be followed in the short term. How does
that sound like for a compromise?
Antti-Juhani> I will not veto a violation of this principle but I
Antti-Juhani> will be demanding that my dissenting opinion be entered
Antti-Juhani> into whatever records we keep on Policy amendments.
We don't. And why are you not trying for a compromise, rather
than going off in a huff and asking for records of formal
dissentions? This is not a debating society, despite what it may
sound like at times. You are not representing an electorate, nor is
anyone counting points.
manoj
--
If life isn't what you wanted, have you asked for anything else?
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
