Raphael Hertzog <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > If you only take into account "non-technical" stuff, you may be right. > But then it's the same type of problematic as with architectures and > porters... should a minority hold back the progress of the majority ?
No. However, majorities do not always choose progress. > There are always discussions between both minorities and majorities, but > then when there's no a agreement possible, should we be stuck because the > discussion didn't led anywhere ? Sometimes yes, sometimes no. Should a majority always win it? No. > > Fewer secretarial roles, facilitation of non-technical GRs and > > more official status to our summaries of technical choices. > > "Fewer secretarial roles" but do you think the secretary should hold > them ? I'm unsure. It would make for consistency and reduces the number of people being flamed to a crisp (but we should reduce that anyway), but maybe would concentrate power or overload the secretary. > Why facilitate only "non-technical" GR ? I meant "non-technical position statement". Editing error. I don't think the quick turnaround is desirable for any of the other types of GR. > > I wondered what views other people have about the idea. > > I wonder too, but it looks like not many people are following that thread > (and it's my fault, I shouldn't have put the controversial bit in the same > discussion thread). Better luck holding back from the drive-by flaming next time. -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
