>>>>> "Ian" == Ian Jackson <ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes:
>> So, if you've reviewed this enough to support Bill's claim that >> there isn't a consensus because there are substantial objections >> raised in the discussions and not addressed, then please say >> that. If you have not reviewed things sufficiently to make that >> conclusion, then I ask you and the rest of the TC to take >> sufficient steps that such a review happen. Ian> It is not the job of the TC to decide whether there was or was Ian> not consensus. It is the job of the TC to decide in cases of Ian> dispute what the best technical approach is. There are many factors the TC can use to decide what technical policy to set and whether to set technical policy. I'm disappointed when I hear you describe such a narrow interpretation for what you want the TC to do, because as I've explained such a narrow interpretation is vin my opinion very harmful to the project. I'm quite confident the TC has the constitutional authority to do what I'm suggesting. However at this point we're repeating ourselves. I understand you that the TC has the authority to do as you propose and that you believe that's the best course of action. On that point we disagree in the strongest possible terms. --Sam -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-ctte-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/tslwqewhtwr....@mit.edu