On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 09:56:31AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: > On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 11:27:32AM +0000, Andrew Suffield wrote: > > That's how the system works. > You presented a very rough first order approximation of how the system > works. > You left out, presumably deliberately, the discussion period which is > also a part of how the system works. > That's where we address things like "what's the point"? However, the discussion period is intended to be finite, it's not supposed to be used as a filibuster. If his answer to "what's the point?" is nothing more involved than "because I want it to be known where the developership stands on the question I proposed", and he gets the requisite seconds, isn't it better to call the vote rather than discussing interminably? Particularly when voting on a resolution which appears to be toothless by design? -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature