On 31/10/08 at 10:13 +0100, Peter Palfrader wrote:
> On Fri, 31 Oct 2008, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
>
> > > So, we right now have an option that effectively stops the proposal as
> > > it is at present.
> > >
> > > I wonder if we should haven an option on the ballot that asks the DAM to
> > > basically go forward with their idea, explicitly authorizing them to
> > > merge the DM setup in to it?
> >
> > I think that this is orthogonal, and should be a seperate resolution,
> > not an option in this resolution.
>
> So you would prefer having "Further Discussion" be the de-facto go-ahead
> option?
Actually, the more I think about it, the more I think that your
formulation for the now-only option in this GR is too complex.
It mixes many different questions:
- do you want to thank Joerg Jaspert for raising this topic now?
- should the proposal be considered finalized? do you support it?
- is it OK if the DAM just decides to change membership management in
the project by himself, without waiting for consensus?
What if I don't want to thank Ganneff, because it was clearly bad
timing, but I support the ideas in his proposal, but I don't want DAM to
decide without consensus, because I believe that it's too important?
Basically, the only real 2 positions that matter are:
(A) I don't care about what was being proposed, I don't want DAM to decide
such important changes without consensus. (no judgement on whether
Joerg's proposal is good or not)
(B) I believe that it's DAM's right to make changes to developer
status, even without waiting for consensus. (there's no point in
voting Joerg's proposal: he will go forward anyway)
I'm considering re-proposing Charles' initial proposal to provide a
clear option for (A), and maybe also providing an option for (B).
--
| Lucas Nussbaum
| [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.lucas-nussbaum.net/ |
| jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG: 1024D/023B3F4F |
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
