On Thu, May 20, 2004 at 10:30:34PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote: > 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. What makes you think the GR process is any speedier than the tech ctte? You did see how long it took to have a GR about the non-free issue, right? You do realise you can work on these things concurrently, right? > > 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. No, I don't have any ability to delegate things to the developer body as a whole. But the developer body as a whole do have the ability to overrule both myself (4.1.3) and the tech ctte (4.1.4), without me saying or doing anything. > > 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...) I considered the editorial amendment to settle the matter. Obviously it didn't. Given the consequences of relying on my judgement once, I'm not going to do it again. > > 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. It's amazing how it's _my_ fault that _you_ couldn't figure out that when I said "I'm not going to make this decision, I've delegated it to the technical ctte" that actually means that any interpretation or decision making would need to be done by the tech ctte. Yeah, you've got _no_ interest whatsoever in casting me as the bad guy here. > 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. Three quarters of the developers interested enough to vote on the issue told me (and the rest of the project) what to do once; when I followed their instructions to the best of my ability, they told me -- fairly unanimously -- it was a stupid thing to do, or at least that I was a stupid person for doing it. I've no idea why you think I'd repeat the same process that's already failed rather catastrophically from my perspective, least of all after I've told you, repeatedly, that I will not. Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns <firstname.lastname@example.org> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/> Don't assume I speak for anyone but myself. GPG signed mail preferred. ``Like the ski resort of girls looking for husbands and husbands looking for girls, the situation is not as symmetrical as it might seem.''
Description: Digital signature