On Tue, 30 Sep 2014 09:12:13 -0400 Rich Freeman <ri...@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 3:00 AM, Ulrich Mueller <u...@gentoo.org> > wrote: > > > > I had just given some reasons above, in the part that you haven't > > quoted. > > > > My main issue was with the "burden of proof" bit. This isn't a court > - we're free to do whatever seems to make the most sense, and not > worry about what kind of precedent it sets, since the next Council can > do whatever makes the most sense at that time. :) Is it fine to replace something that has worked for years without proof? > I'm all for something that covers the bases but is a bit cleaner in > design. Right now we have different sources for membership lists of > different kinds of groups, and that just seems like poor > normalization. Why does it seem poor? How to have a single list for different kinds? Is normalization necessary? Does normalization make it cleaner at all? The groups are of a different kind for a reason; normalization, YAGNI.
