Re: Another one?

["Margarita Manterola" <margamanterola@gmail.com>]

On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 8:09 AM, Lucas Nussbaum
<lucas@lucas-nussbaum.net> wrote:
> Actually, the more I think about it, the more I think that your
> formulation for the now-only option in this GR is too complex.
> It mixes many different questions:
> - do you want to thank Joerg Jaspert for raising this topic now?
> - should the proposal be considered finalized? do you support it?
> - is it OK if the DAM just decides to change membership management in
>  the project by himself, without waiting for consensus?
>
> What if I don't want to thank Ganneff, because it was clearly bad
> timing, but I support the ideas in his proposal, but I don't want DAM to
> decide without consensus, because I believe that it's too important?

> I'm considering re-proposing Charles' initial proposal to provide a
> clear option for (A), and maybe also providing an option for (B).

I think that the main problem with Charles proposal was that it was
too aggressive.  If you can provide options that are not aggressive
but still convey the meaning you want, I guess you'll get the needed
seconds easily

I do agree that we need something extra, otherwise the meaning of
"Further Discussion" is really obscure.

-- 
Besos,
Marga