On Wed, 2005-12-21 at 12:08 +0100, Adrian von Bidder wrote: > On Tuesday 20 December 2005 19.33, Anthony Towns wrote: > > ... it's worth considering a GR ... > > I really liked your analysis up to that point. > > I can't see any reason why we would need a GR here. I think it's an interesting approach. The issue at hand has been going on for a long time, and it is needed that something is done. What especially needed is a decision on how it is going to be solved, and after the decision has been made, that people work towards reaching that goal. There's been a lot of talk, but it's needed that there's a clear decision on the solution for the problem. The instrument for the Debian project to decide, is a GR. A GR is not something that should only be used in issues like the constitution. It can also be used for anything that you want a clear decision on, after some discussion. Trying to reach a real, clear consensus, especially in cases like this, is very difficult. It's a fair instrument, because everyone has an equal vote and it doesn't favour the loudest discussion participant. A discussion usually ends in the lack of objections, or ends in some people in favour and others who disagree. In the second case, what do you do? Are there just a few, loud people in favour and a silent majority against? Or the other way around? This proposal might bring a resolution to the trouble. But it will only work if it's clear that it's widely supported. So to me the obvious advantage would be that it brings clarity. To ask you a question: why would you not hold a gr? What disadvantage does it bring? Thijs
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part