[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Ready to vote on 2004-003?

On Wed, May 19, 2004 at 02:15:57PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> I thought carefully about the last resolution, and assumed that it was
> blindingly obvious that of course changes would get phased in over a
> period of tim.

I didn't see anything that made this obvious -- can you explain to me
the basis for this assumption?

> I was shocked that Anthony took the position they
> would need to be instantly conformed to.

It might help if you could explain your reasoning.  Note that Anthony has
stated that he's willing to reconsider his opinion (he's deferred that
decision to the Technical Committee), but so far no one has provided a
solid reason for that opinion to be overridden.

> I am worried that again there will be something that I think is
> blindingly obvious that he will take differently.

Hey, maybe you are right and he shouldn't have made the decision he did.
If so, there's no need for this GR -- all we need to do is follow
your logic.  [Which is what?]

Alternatively, you made a mistake and there was no reasonable way for
Anthony to anticipate that you made this mistake.  In which case there
would be no way for him to talk to you ahead of time and tell you that
you were making this mistake.

But in neither case is "Ask Anthony before voting" a reasonable solution
to the problem.

> > Why isn't it sufficient that he's stated that his interpretation of
> > the old SC allowed some packages and his interpretation of the new SC
> > does not?
> Because I have no idea whether he agrees that the GRs in question
> actually revert it properly.

You haven't defined "properly".

If there is some rational basis for thinking that Anthony made the wrong
decision, we can just skip this GR.

> I am worried that he will interpret one
> in a way that prevents it.  And since it's so easy for him to say
> "yes", and he won't, it makes me suspect all the more that the answer
> isn't yes, and I am trying to figure out why he won't tell us.

This seems totally irrational.


Reply to: