On Mon, 2002-11-25 at 12:33, Stephen McConnell wrote:
> Leo:
>
> I understand and support the principal you are putting forward in you email.
all I want, really :)
> I don't support the approach.
>
> Following the transition there was a lot of discussion about
> reorganization - to-date only a small number of the issues have been
> addressed - there are things that need to be done. Instead of padding
> the cells with cotton-wool, isn't it a better idea to pull together some
> level of position - identification of issue/actions, etc. Keep things
> under [PROPOSAL] state being maybe a little more formal
how about informal but distinctive ;)
> about
> distinguishing between discussion versus decision - where discussion is
> done to death - and theres consensus - we can move forward with a [VOTE]
> - where the discussion is problematic - lets a least get to the point of
> knowing this.
okay.
> One more point - avalon-sandpad.
sandbox ;)
> I do not agree that this is the dumping ground for contentious code.
> It was my understanding that this is the area for non-released code,
> experiments, and evolving content. I don't think we should change that.
agreed. However, the things I think that are currently contentious are
unreleased evolving experiments :D
also, what I think is that we should make sure that
ContentiousCode extends UnreleasedCode {}
cheers,
- Leo
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
