Jim Jagielski wrote:
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 :)
I thought paraphrasing a little bit would not hurt, and it explains my vote.
Rémy
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
