A few more weeks, eh?
To me, it seems like we're intentionally avoiding the GR process because we
don't like the process and have decided to simply ignore it for the sake of
extending the discussion.
On Mon, Jun 17, 2024, 06:04 Ian Jackson <ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
wrote:
> Michael Lustfield writes ("Re: [RFC] General Resolution to deploy
> tag2upload [and 1 more messages]"):
> > Is this a GR?
>
> It is not yet a formally proposed GR. So in one sense, no.
>
> > If it is, don't we have a process that's designed to eventually
> > stop never-ending back and forth disagreements, like the many that have
> been
> > seen in these threads?
>
> Actually, it seems to me that these threads, while long, have mostly
> avoided repetetive back-and-forth.
>
> The formal GR discussion period is very short. We have had a couple
> of important points raised here imply changes to the resolution.
>
> I think the thread so far has been very useful to help everyone
> understand our proposal; to reconfirm that our position and
> ftpmaster's are still irreconcilable; and to help us identify
> questions we probably want to address in the FAQ we're preparing.
>
> I don't think we would have achieved that with the formal GR
> discussion period. We anticipated that there would be many questions,
> which is why we started with a draft.
>
> I agree that we don't want to drag this out. I have been trying to
> avoid replying when I wouldn't be adding anything. I think Sean and
> Russ have been doing the same.
>
> And, we'll bring this to a formal GR soon, so hopefully you'll only
> have to bear a few more weeks of this. In the meantime, thanks for
> your forbearance.
>
> Ian.
>
> --
> Ian Jackson <ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> These opinions are my
> own.
>
> Pronouns: they/he. If I emailed you from @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk,
> that is a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.
>
