Hi Francesca, I have not done any analysis in the (deep, interesting) way all of the people you have quoted has. I do feel it's positive to have this kind of statement, and I thank you for bringing it forward. I'll just talk on a formal level here: > * isn't better a GR to give this statement more force/legitimation? > > I'd prefer one, yes. But it's also true that in the next months people > will work hard for the upcoming freeze and it seems a waste of time to > ask them to vote when we can reach a consensus via mailing list. > If we can't reach a consensus here, I will propose > a GR about it. I suggest this is submitted to a GR *even* if consensus is reached. I'd like this kind of document to be deep-reaching, maybe even accompany the SC and the DFSG as our basament documents. There's always the discussion on what does the "silent minority" say - And a good way IMO to get every DD at least informed about this (if they don't follow the lists) and get their real standpoint (of course, understanding that not casting a vote means "I don't care, I'll agree with whatever the project decides") is via a GR. We thankfully don't do GRs as often as we could. Yes, they are defined in a bureaucratic way, and quite on purpose. But precisely for a deep change such as what you are proposing, I think a GR is the perfect way forward.
Description: Digital signature