Hi,
>>"Nicolás" == Nicolás Lichtmaier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Nicolás> And this was handled pretty bad:
Nicolás> 1) The update to the policy was obviously bad. It needed
Nicolás> more discussion. Bad for the policy editors.
What policy editors? There aren't any who have editorial
power. And your comment is the reason why. Sorry, unlike with
Christian, we do not have a ready scapegoat to blame this time.
Nicolás> 3) If this `formal obection' mechanism worked this way here,
Nicolás> then it's badly designed. People can use it for normal
Nicolás> votes... so if 40 people likes a proposal and 5 don't the
Nicolás> proposal get dumped.
Creating technical policy based on popular vote is a bad
idea. The design was predicated on the fact that people in this list
would not frivolously object to proposals, and any proposal so
objected to was so seriously flawed that no further discussion on
that ptoposal would be worth it.
If we assume that people in this group act rationally, then
formal objections would only happen to proposals that have no
merit. Ordinary consensus building is supposed to take care of flaws
in non egrigious proposals.
manoj
--
Fortune's Real-Life Courtroom Quote #32: Q: Do you know how far
pregnant you are right now? A: I will be three months November
8th. Q: Apparently then, the date of conception was August 8th? A:
Yes. Q: What were you and your husband doing at that time?
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
