Re: Draft GR for permitting private discussion
Michael Gilbert <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 4:08 PM, Michael Gilbert wrote:
>>> So, really every other aspect of that process is malleable. In this
>>> case, I it would be incredibly humble and poignant to initiate a
>>> -project discussion prior to the official process since that sets the
>>> clock in motion (i.e. someone could get antsy and call for seconds
>>> before there's really been appropriate time for, yes, pre-discussion
>>> to figure out if this is something the project actually wants).
Wouldn't it be better to just not do that, rather than to use what feels
like a somewhat elaborate workaround?
I understand that you're worried that the topic won't have time for
sufficient discussion, but two weeks is actually quite a long time to
discuss something. Also, there is nothing that requires us to call for a
vote in two weeks; it's only a minimum discussion period.
If we already have a discussion step, it feels to me like we should use
that step for the discussion, and if there's something wrong with that
discussion method, we should try to fix it rather than creating more
>> Quick correction: just read tech committee proposals don't need
>> actually need seconds.
> Apologies for continuing to reply to myself. How does a proposal get
> accounted for as a tech committee proposal vs. an individual developer's
> proposal? Does a majority of the tech committee need to vote for the
> proposal prior to raising it to the project level?
Yes, the last is our understanding of the constitution.
Russ Allbery (email@example.com) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>