Previously Raul Miller wrote: > (1) The technical committee should have been asked to approve the the > original 3.0.0.0 policy change. Looking at the constitution, and at > our current policy, everything which would result in a new major policy > version number ought to be approved by the technical committee before > it's released. I think I agree with this. > (2) The technical committee is just getting itself together. We've had > a number of problems with stale email addresses to work out, for example. You have to admit that this is somewhat strange, considering the ctte has officially existed for months now. > (3) My daughter was in the hospital last week, which stalled the voting > process for almost a full week. [I had agreed to prepare the ballot, > then didn't have the time to do it.] There should be a backup-plan for events like this IMHO. > The way I read the constitution, the policy group doesn't have the right > to set policy which declares existing packages buggy (any policy which > bumps the major version number should have this property). It appears > that they're supposed to get technical committee approval before releasing > such policy. This sounds like we are agreeing here. > The current technical committee vote will be over next Sunday, or earlier > if our other three members (Ian, Guy, Klee) vote before then. Mkay. This means that right now only you and Dale voted, right? How long has the vote been in progress? Wichert. -- ============================================================================== This combination of bytes forms a message written to you by Wichert Akkerman. E-Mail: wichert@cs.leidenuniv.nl WWW: http://www.wi.leidenuniv.nl/~wichert/
Attachment:
pgpiiHMmuZmg1.pgp
Description: PGP signature