Re: The Sourceless software in the kernel source GR
On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 21:56:25 -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG <firstname.lastname@example.org> said:
> Manoj Srivastava <email@example.com> writes:
>> What is an issue is that a sloppy proposal mail may have mislead
>> the sponsors to believe that a preamble was an introductory
>> section, or vice versa. Hard to know unless the proposors and
>> ponsors are clear about their intent.
> Right, so when you disambiguate (either way), especially if your
> understanding differs from the proposer, it makes sense to check
> back with the sponsors. I don't see why that couldn't have been
> done in this case.
I don't care about just the proposers opinion, I want to
ensure that what the proposer is telling me is what the people and
the sponsors also agreed to. I suppose we could have a lengthy email
exchange, and assume that the sponsors are still paying attention to
every mail in the deluge that is -vote; or we can have an up front
process that does not depend on a culture of heroes for success.
EARTH: Mostly harmless.
Manoj Srivastava <firstname.lastname@example.org> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C