Front page | perl.bootstrap |
Postings from July 2000
In <p04320402b5a338fa446c@[192.168.0.77]>, Chris Nandor writes: :As I see it, voting could serve two purposes: an advisory role, or a :decision-making role. The latter seems unreasonable; this is why we have :the pumpkings and working groups. The former seems subuseful; this is why :we have the pumpkings and working groups. :-) Agreed. :I suppose it can't hurt anything as long as we don't take the voting too :seriously; but if we aren't going to take it too seriously, what's the :point? There can be a danger, particularly with discussion hived off to small working groups, of decisions being taken and cast in stone without people realising it before it is too late. I think this is one thing that the voting may have been intended to address - "hey folks, this may be the _last_ chance to make your views known" - but I think it is probably not the best way. If the RFC approach is done right, I think it can solve this problem: for that, I think a) there needs to be a way to say 'notify me when the RFC text changes', and b) the text of the RFC needs to be updated (among other occasions) when consensus starts to emerge but before any final decision is taken. HugoThread Previous | Thread Next