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

Re: Anton's amendment

On Wednesday 01 February 2006 18:41, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Kalle Kivimaa <killer@debian.org> writes:
> > Thomas Bushnell BSG <tb@becket.net> writes:
> >> All they need to do, if you are right, is proceed to declare that
> >> their change is really just an interpretation of whatever is already
> >> there.  And, by hypothesis, they can present a claim that heck, a
> >
> > Actually, a group of developers, no matter how large, can proceed to
> > claim whatever they want, but the project's interpretation is up to
> > the secretary. If (s)he is in the minority of one, it is still _his_
> > interpretation that matters, nobody elses.
> This would be my view too.  But we have people claiming that the
> secretary is somehow remiss in deciding such a case himself, on the
> sole grounds that there are a bunch of people who say they think
> differently.

The secretary is going to get the final say, but that doesn't mean that 
those who believe that he is making a wrong choice should not attempt to 
give their points of view and make him reconsider.

If end in the end he makes a decision and it's been done completely in good 
faith, then nobody is going to belly-ache after-the-fact. Okay--reality 
check--maybe a bunch of people will. But at least for me, *I* will support 
the secretary's good faith decisions--he's just doing his job.

Wesley J. Landaker <wjl@icecavern.net> <xmpp:wjl@icecavern.net>
OpenPGP FP: 4135 2A3B 4726 ACC5 9094  0097 F0A9 8A4C 4CD6 E3D2

Attachment: pgpGRp8eZXtEu.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: