On Thursday 20 March 2008 07:33, Yves-Alexis Perez wrote: > When you register to NM process, you're asked to check boxes if you > agree to Social Contract etc. But those checks aren't really enough. > What you have is to say (somewhere on a signed mail) that you agree. > Currently only the AM receives the mail, and translate this in his AM > report, using a signed mail. And we trust AM that the NM sure has agreed > to DSFG, Social Contract, … It's still a good idea to have, at some > point, the confirmation.
Exactly why is that a good idea? The original signed mail is in the posession of the AM, the FD and the DAM. Could you point me to a point in the past where we really needed that signed mail but all of AM, FD and DAM for that DD were unable to produce it? Suppose we had it posted to the mailinglist then, what exactly were we going to use it for? A court case against someone breaking the social contract they "signed"? I would love to see some use cases before we introduce more hoops in any of our processes. Thijs
pgpF4YFb1lYaM.pgp
Description: PGP signature
