Re: Ready to vote on 2004-003?
Scripsit Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au>
> but I'm not going to do your thinking for you. This is _your_ decision
> to make.
Nobody is claiming otherwise.
> Want the exception right now, no changes to the social contract necessary?
> Convince the tech ctte, or overrule them by GR.
That is exactly what people are trying to do. You are obstructing that
process by not being willing to tell whether one of the GRs currently
proposed will be interpreted by you as "overrule".
> Dude, it doesn't matter if I miss the point or not;
It matters. You are the one the point is being aimed at.
> this decision is delegated to the technical ctte; as long as they
> see the point, all is fine in the world.
A decision to overrule the TC means that the TC does not have to
act. They can stay mute, and the project officials are expected to
immediately go on implementing the overruling decision. It makes not
sense for the TC to start voting on whether they have been overruled;
it is not for them to decide.
That means that if one of the GRs are passed, your only excuse for
*not* acting on it will be that you do not consider the GR to overrule
the TC.
You have apparently still not answered wheter you are going to act as
if one of the current GRs overrule the TC.
> Geez. There are simple answers here,
Yes. But you are still refusing to give them out.
> this whole exercise in democracy is a waste of time.
This whole exercise in democracy IS a waste of time as long as you,
as an appointed official of the project, refuse to disclose whether
you consider the proposal clear enough to be considered an order or not.
--
Henning Makholm "The compile-time type checker for this
language has proved to be a valuable filter which
traps a significant proportion of programming errors."
Reply to: