Re: First call for vote on immediate vote under section 4.2.2
MJ Ray <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> outweigh a screaming crowd in the IETF process. We have seen reasoned
> objections to several DPL decisions, yet the screaming crowd is used to
> drown out calls for consensus. This DPL hasn't even looked for rough
> consensus on some issues, as far as I've seen.
Which issues would those be, then?
If I look at the controversial issues aj has rised, I find these
1. Sven vs. the rest of the d-i team mediation
2. Using project funds to pay some developers
3. Revoking the policy editor delegation
In #1 aj was explicitly asked to make a decision by a party in the
controversy. In #2 aj first solicited opinions and then decided *not*
to go forward. #3 was a snap judgement based on the behaviour of a
delegate and it looks like aj is already reconsidering it.
So, we have one issue that aj was forced to take action on, one issue
that he acted on exactly as the constitution states, and one that IMO
did require fast action, and I'd say that the consensus on policy
changes is that no one developer should be able to make normative
changes without peer review.
* Sufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology (T.P) *
* PGP public key available @ http://www.iki.fi/killer *