Re: [dissenting]: Proposal: Enhance requirements for General resolutions
Lucas Nussbaum <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> On 25/03/09 at 09:06 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> There was a clear need for a clarification. Why we had to vote on the
>> clarification after Ganneff made it clear that it wasn't his intent to
>> implement prior to consensus is still highly perplexing to me.
> Joerg Jaspert never made it perfectly clear that he would not implement
> anything before consensus. I repeatedly asked him to publicly say that
> (saying that I would withdraw my amendments if he did), but he never
Hm. Well, that wasn't the impression I had at the time, but I have no
particular grounds for thinking that you're mistaken and I'm right versus
the other way around.
I didn't really mean to re-open this (not that you could tell from my
original message -- sorry about that) so much as to note that I think we
vote a lot on things where it's unclear to me that a GR is the way to
address the problem, versus talking about it more. The reason why this
proposal is appealing to me is that I'd rather not see GRs be used as a
stick with which to beat people, and if it's much harder to get one voted
on, I think they may be less common as an early recourse in a discussion
that isn't going one's way.
I like MJ's proposal for making the change in the required number of
seconds expire automatically if we end up having no GRs at all, though.
It does seem likely that within a year (or maybe two; I'm not sure which
timeframe makes the most sense) there will be *something* that warrants a
Russ Allbery (email@example.com) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>