On Sun, Jul 20, 2003 at 11:14:46AM +0200, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
>
> Nobody seems to be so unhappy that they want to propose a general
> resolution.
Or they are not quite so arrogant as to think they could pick someone out
of a hat who would *absolutely* be a better choice, which is more or less
what any meaningful GR would have to do (one directing the DPL to select a
new DAM, without saying who, is not terribly useful, IMO).
So instead, we try to make it clear that we *are* dissatisfied, without
having to spend a lot of *everyone's* time on running a GR that many
folks might vote against on principle ("We shouldn't be making this sort
of decision for the DPL"), whether or not they think the NM process has
issues.
Even in a perfect system, not everything is *best* solved by a mass vote.
That is better left for electing those who make the smaller decisions
(the DPL), or as a last resort for fixing grave and otherwise untenable
problems.
If I thought a GR would actually provide a useful resolution to the
problem, I wouldn't hesitate to put one up. I don't, in this case, mostly
due to previous conversations. And so, instead, I'll restate the offer that
I'd rather try to do something useful to help fix it - if anyone will say
what *needs to be done*.
--
Joel Baker <fenton@debian.org>
Attachment:
pgpdCVRIn_Ejz.pgp
Description: PGP signature