On Fri, 2008-12-19 at 16:27 +0000, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Joshua D. Drake writes ("Re: Meeting log for 2008-12-17"):
> > On Fri, 2008-12-19 at 10:13 +0000, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > > For other kinds of resolutions there are of course other isomorphic
> > > problems. That is why THE MEMBERSHIP MUST BE GIVEN THE CHANCE TO
> > > COMMENT!
> >
> > Wouldn't it make sense to make this argument on -private, where the
> > contributing members are?
>
> No, because discussions should be in public if there is no reason for
> them to be private. We had already agreed that, surely ? I can't
> seem to find a resolution about it right now.
>
I recall a motion that said we should discuss on private (I could be off
my rocker) but the thing is... the *only* people that can do anything
about what you are arguing is contributing members. E.g; they are the
ones that can vote. So -general may consider this noise.
I don't know honestly but what I do know is that there are many
contributing members that do not bother to read let alone subscribe to
-general.
Joshua D. Drake
> Ian.
> _______________________________________________
> Spi-general mailing list
> Spi-general@lists.spi-inc.org
> http://lists.spi-inc.org/listinfo/spi-general
>
--
PostgreSQL
Consulting, Development, Support, Training
503-667-4564 - http://www.commandprompt.com/
The PostgreSQL Company, serving since 1997
_______________________________________________
Spi-general mailing list
Spi-general@lists.spi-inc.org
http://lists.spi-inc.org/listinfo/spi-general
