On Wed, Feb 08, 2006 at 02:19:32AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote: > > Presumably we can expect any additional comments from other members > > within a few days or a week; but you'd need to ask for a vote before it > > should be taken as absolutely definitive, I'd think. > So to what extent will such a provisional statement from the chair meet the > needs of someone who would be seeking tech-ctte guidance, then? It seems to > me that a vote will almost invariably be needed to satisfy the petitioner; > otherwise, why take the issue to the tech-ctte at all instead of just > soliciting opinions on -devel or some other list? Ultimately, it'll probably depend on how representative the chair's opinions end up being. Most of the time, it ought to be fairly simple for any of us to be pretty confident when there's a clear "best" alternative that everyone's going to vote for anyway, and when there's probably still some debate about what's best. That means when the chair says "this is the way to go", it's likely it really is the way to go, and a vote will just confirm that, so they can go ahead immediately with it. In any event, there seems like there's two possible outcomes: either a vote's not required, and the opinion gives the petitioner the guidance they wanted sooner than otherwise; or a vote is required, but there's a clear statement of what the ctte is likely to decide fairly early on. Cheers, aj
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature