Scripsit Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Thu, May 20, 2004 at 07:23:03PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> > You have been asked whether (and which) one of the proposed GR's will
> > make the decision sufficiently clear to you that you will not need to
> > have the tech-ctte decide explicitly.
> Eh? What difference does that make?
It makes the difference that if such a GR wins the vote, we will not
have to wait for the tech ctte. Some people, including me, would find
that highly desirable.
> The decision's delegated to the technical ctte; if you want to know
> which GRs will ensure they will make the decision you want you'll need
> to ask them.
Brfore you said that you had delegated the matter to the technical
committee *or* the developers, by general resolution.
> I don't really think any GR would avoid me wanting the tech ctte's
> explicit decision.
Thank you. That's all we wanted to know.
(Though do I find it strange that you don't consider, for example,
option D, which permanently reverts the SC to the previous stage, to
settle the matter...)
> > You are still not answering that.
> It seems like kind-of a stupid question, and it hadn't been asked.
I asked it multiple times. You are bound to have noticed that.
> > We're asking about a *fact*, namely how your actions in the role you
> > fill will be influenced by each outcome of the vote.
> No, you're asking for me to take back a decision that I've delegate to
> the technical committee.
No I'm not.
> > We don't. We wish to rely on facts.
> Then find them out yourself.
One of the facts we needed to find was the answer you gave above,
after a long and hard efforts to provoke an aswer from you.
> > That seems to be exactly what you are refusing to do now. You won't
> > even tell us whether it is or is not clear.
> Work it out yourself. If you get half the project to tell me the correct
> course of action; I'll happily oblige.
Above you said that even if two thirds of the project told you the
correct course of action in a GR, you would still ignore them and keep
waiting for the technical committee.
--
Henning Makholm "The Board views the endemic use of PowerPoint
briefing slides instead of technical papers as an
illustration of the problematic methods of technical communicaion at NASA."
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
