Re: Social Contract GR's Affect on sarge

[Nathanael Nerode <neroden@twcny.rr.com>]

Florian Weimer wrote:

> Petter Reinholdtsen <pere@hungry.com> writes:
> 
>> Well, there is another explanation around as well, which at least a
>> few of the people I talked to on IRC verified.  Several of these
>> people did not realize that the change was substantial, because there
>> were no rationale or explanation included in the vote document, and
>> the title of the vote claimed that the change was only editorial.
>>
>> So perhaps they cared, but were not aware of the issue?
> 
> In this case you should have voted "further discussion".
> 
> Of course, such behavior has a tendency to stifle progress.  Given
> that there was so little discussion leading up to the vote, I think it
> was appropriate in this case.
Oh, there were *years* of discussion.  If you weren't listening, well,
aargh.

-- 
There are none so blind as those who will not see.