Hello, On Tue 24 Sep 2019 at 08:10AM -04, Sam Hartman wrote:
> So, I agree that a GR would be the wrong approach if we thought that we > could get to a consensus strong enough for the policy editors. > > I also agree that the policy editors have the technical authority to use > a different (non-consensus) process and simply change policy. The > policy editors have chosen not to do that sort of thing for a variety of > reasons. Personally I think they have judged the needs of the project > well. I think that the project would generally be unhappy if the policy > editors simply used their best technical judgment to set policy rather > than following a consensus process. > > It seems quite clear that the existing policy process would not come to > consensus on any of Thomas's points. > So, if we did want to get to a firm policy, I think a GR would be the > right tool. Right. It's difficult to imagine us getting consensus on these points via that process. -- Sean Whitton
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
