Lucas Nussbaum <lu...@lucas-nussbaum.net> writes: > On 25/03/09 at 09:06 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> There was a clear need for a clarification. Why we had to vote on the >> clarification after Ganneff made it clear that it wasn't his intent to >> implement prior to consensus is still highly perplexing to me. > Joerg Jaspert never made it perfectly clear that he would not implement > anything before consensus. I repeatedly asked him to publicly say that > (saying that I would withdraw my amendments if he did), but he never > answered. Hm. Well, that wasn't the impression I had at the time, but I have no particular grounds for thinking that you're mistaken and I'm right versus the other way around. I didn't really mean to re-open this (not that you could tell from my original message -- sorry about that) so much as to note that I think we vote a lot on things where it's unclear to me that a GR is the way to address the problem, versus talking about it more. The reason why this proposal is appealing to me is that I'd rather not see GRs be used as a stick with which to beat people, and if it's much harder to get one voted on, I think they may be less common as an early recourse in a discussion that isn't going one's way. I like MJ's proposal for making the change in the required number of seconds expire automatically if we end up having no GRs at all, though. It does seem likely that within a year (or maybe two; I'm not sure which timeframe makes the most sense) there will be *something* that warrants a vote. -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
