Re: Ready to vote on 2004-003?
Scripsit Anthony Towns <email@example.com>
> On Thu, May 20, 2004 at 07:23:03PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> > You have been asked whether (and which) one of the proposed GR's will
> > make the decision sufficiently clear to you that you will not need to
> > have the tech-ctte decide explicitly.
> Eh? What difference does that make?
It makes the difference that if such a GR wins the vote, we will not
have to wait for the tech ctte. Some people, including me, would find
that highly desirable.
> The decision's delegated to the technical ctte; if you want to know
> which GRs will ensure they will make the decision you want you'll need
> to ask them.
Brfore you said that you had delegated the matter to the technical
committee *or* the developers, by general resolution.
> I don't really think any GR would avoid me wanting the tech ctte's
> explicit decision.
Thank you. That's all we wanted to know.
(Though do I find it strange that you don't consider, for example,
option D, which permanently reverts the SC to the previous stage, to
settle the matter...)
> > You are still not answering that.
> It seems like kind-of a stupid question, and it hadn't been asked.
I asked it multiple times. You are bound to have noticed that.
> > We're asking about a *fact*, namely how your actions in the role you
> > fill will be influenced by each outcome of the vote.
> No, you're asking for me to take back a decision that I've delegate to
> the technical committee.
No I'm not.
> > We don't. We wish to rely on facts.
> Then find them out yourself.
One of the facts we needed to find was the answer you gave above,
after a long and hard efforts to provoke an aswer from you.
> > That seems to be exactly what you are refusing to do now. You won't
> > even tell us whether it is or is not clear.
> Work it out yourself. If you get half the project to tell me the correct
> course of action; I'll happily oblige.
Above you said that even if two thirds of the project told you the
correct course of action in a GR, you would still ignore them and keep
waiting for the technical committee.
Henning Makholm "The Board views the endemic use of PowerPoint
briefing slides instead of technical papers as an
illustration of the problematic methods of technical communicaion at NASA."