On Jan 18, 2010, at 4:43 PM, Shelley Powers wrote: >> This approach is originally Sam's idea, and I am pleased with the way it's been working out. I don't think Sam is saying we're going to change things. But he *is* saying that the counter-proposal period is not guaranteed, and if a Change Proposal is either a clear winner or a clear loser just from mailing list discussion, we may not bother formally calling for alternatives. >> > > That's not a step in the Decision process. The decision process states > that if the change proposal has general acclaim, it will most likely > be passed by consensus. If the change proposal has little or no > support, regardless of how it is written, it probably won't even go to > the poll. The Decision Policy also includes a discussion period with no specific bound. A few times now, we've chosen to request that some of that discussion be distilled into additional Change Proposals. That's been our best judgment of how to bring discussion to a resolution when there is no clear consensus winner. That's seemed more prudent to us than just going to a poll - we prefer for that to be the last resort. Other than that, I agree with what you said. If a Change Proposal is a clear winner or clear loser, it can succeed or fail without the need for any further Change Proposals. > > There is nothing in this that states, "We will put out a call for > counter-proposals when a change proposal is submitted". Not only that > but, "We will put out MULTIPLE calls for counter-proposals, telling > people the counter-proposal has to be finished in a month". I can't recall an instance where we've put out multiple calls for counter-proposals. > > Speaking of chairs, Sam when you said "both" chairs, does this mean > Paul has quit? I think Sam just misspoke. Regards, Maciej
Received on Tuesday, 19 January 2010 00:50:14 UTC