Tollef Fog Heen <tfh...@err.no> writes: > Given how the voting ratio so far looks, I've been giving the whole GR > process a bit of thought lately and at least I am unlikely to pursue it, > simply because I don't think it's a good way to spend my and the > project's energy.
There's one point that I think is worth noting there, although I'm not advocating for a GR and it would be much better if the TC arrived at a conclusion that the project could get behind. That's that it's common, for decision-making bodies and for appeal processes, to have a small group of people go off and do discovery of the facts so that there's a basis of researched information on which to judge an appeal. Obviously, one of the reasons why I'm trying to synthesize my understanding and write up summaries is because I think it's useful for the TC decision itself. But it's also a useful artifact for the developer body as a whole, should it want to review the TC decision. I think this process has already brought a lot more light to the exact issues, concerns, and tradeoffs involved, and subsequent decisions can be made with reference to the artifacts of the TC deliberation, without expecting each developer to need to go off and do research on their own. We've already worked through a variety of misconceptions and false starts that were not obvious from the debian-devel discussion. If it does come to a project-wide vote, I think we will have more of a consensus on the facts as we know them today, and people can then vote on how they want to weigh those facts against each other. -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
