Re: Tech ctte tweaks
On 2/6/06, Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au> wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 06, 2006 at 10:33:37PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > On 2/6/06, Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au> wrote:
> > > I was thinking along the lines of "rules of order", which isn't much
> > > different from "advertising a guideline". The difference is if we set it
> > > up as a rule, people can be confident we'll adhere to it, whereas if we
> > > call it a guideline we might end up spending time wondering if we should
> > > adhere to it on each issue.
> > Eh... of course we already have something like this written into the
> > constitution. But, sure, a little crisping up would probably be a good
> > thing.
>
> I don't see anything like that in the constitution?
I see this as a variation on a point made in 6.3.5 (No Detailed Design Work):
The Technical Committee restricts itself to choosing from or
adopting compromises between solutions and decisions which have
been proposed and reasonably thoroughly discussed elsewhere.
It seems to me that you're making a suggestion about which proposals
are detailed enough
--
Raul
Reply to: