On Wednesday 01 February 2006 18:41, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: > Kalle Kivimaa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> All they need to do, if you are right, is proceed to declare that > >> their change is really just an interpretation of whatever is already > >> there. And, by hypothesis, they can present a claim that heck, a > > > > Actually, a group of developers, no matter how large, can proceed to > > claim whatever they want, but the project's interpretation is up to > > the secretary. If (s)he is in the minority of one, it is still _his_ > > interpretation that matters, nobody elses. > > This would be my view too. But we have people claiming that the > secretary is somehow remiss in deciding such a case himself, on the > sole grounds that there are a bunch of people who say they think > differently.
The secretary is going to get the final say, but that doesn't mean that those who believe that he is making a wrong choice should not attempt to give their points of view and make him reconsider. If end in the end he makes a decision and it's been done completely in good faith, then nobody is going to belly-ache after-the-fact. Okay--reality check--maybe a bunch of people will. But at least for me, *I* will support the secretary's good faith decisions--he's just doing his job. -- Wesley J. Landaker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> OpenPGP FP: 4135 2A3B 4726 ACC5 9094 0097 F0A9 8A4C 4CD6 E3D2
pgp7ZqG5gSkLL.pgp
Description: PGP signature
