Remy Maucherat wrote: > > Jim Jagielski wrote: > > [X] +1. Yes, the above works and addresses my concerns > > as well as the problems which started this whole > > thing. > > [ ] 0. Whatever. > > [ ] -1. The above does not work for the following reasons: > > My proposal was to put the principles forward clearly: > - core changes need to be discussed beforehand > - calls for review (or vetoes, which in the end are sometimes very > similar) should be considered rather than exclusively spend time to > determine if they are legitimate >
See the bulleted EMail which was in response to Tim's request :) -- =========================================================================== Jim Jagielski [|] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [|] http://www.jaguNET.com/ "If you can dodge a wrench, you can dodge a ball." --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
