Re: Requested addition to section 7.1

27.12.2016, 14:59, "Daniel Glazman" <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com>:
> On 27/12/2016 14:10, Jeff Jaffe wrote:
>
>>>  I therefore think that ISSUE-176 can be closed, at least for now.
>>
>>  While I agree with your conclusion (that this may not need a change in
>>  process), I don't think we should close the issue without a thorough
>>  discussion in the Process CG. Clearly there are those who feel that a
>>  process change is needed, and I think we need to hear them out.
>>
>>  It would seem very odd to me if the way we respond to people who are
>>  saying: "you are making decisions without talking to me first" - is to
>>  close their issue without thoroughly hearing their proposals and
>>  discussing with them.
>
> Thanks. And I am surprised to see a request to close issue 176 before
> my change proposal is posted here.

Hmm. Seems I need more sleep, so I explain myself better. This is my "starting point" on the issue, as a participant. 

Any decision to close should obviously be taken by the group, and declared by the chair. 

I agree that unless you drop your plan to propose a change, that would probably be a premature decision, and presume your message means your plan is still active…

Sorry I sounded so dogmatic. I am waiting to consider your proposal, to see if it changes my mind.

cheers

-- 
Charles McCathie Nevile - standards - Yandex
chaals@yandex-team.ru - - - Find more at http://yandex.com

Received on Tuesday, 27 December 2016 14:36:12 UTC