Julian Reschke wrote: > James Graham wrote: >> ... >> Nevertheless, for better or worse the charter puts the burden of >> proof on those wishing for a formal decision to be made to >> demonstrate that the decision is needed for progress. Is there a >> documented reason that this particular decision was so important that >> it should circumvent the usual proposal-draft-feedback-redraft cycle? >> We have recently seen the ... > > My understanding of that cycle (*) is that it implies that there's no > way to get something into the spec the editor doesn't want in there. > That would be a problem. The decision making process in the charter specifically documents how to break that cycle. The first requirement is to demonstrate that there is a need to do so.Received on Sunday, 31 August 2008 12:06:50 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:33:32 UTC