Re: [Call for seconds] The ???no GR, please??? amendement.
>>>>> "Charles" == Charles Plessy <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
Charles> Thanks Anthony and Lucas for your suggestions. Even if it
Charles> can be improved, I am reluctant to change the wording of
Charles> the amendement, given that the whole point is a) to say
Charles> that a GR is unwelcome, and b) to reduce as much as
Charles> possible the “attack surface” on the voted text in case
Charles> some people want to use it to continue arguing after the
I've already seconded this and will vote for it.
I do think I'd feel slightly more comfortable with a statement that the
existing processing were working adequately than a statement that the
question has already been answered.
See, I'm not actually sure that all the questions surrounding init
systems have been answered.
I think people are busy doing the work to answer them though and nothing
needs project-level intervention.
Lucas's analysis is correct; there are questions that would be answered
by this GR that seem to be answered no where else formally yet.
my response is "so what? People are doing their jobs, let's not get in
I'd rather this amendment not push people away simply because they
disagree over whether all the questions have been answered.