On Wed, Aug 04, 1999 at 01:05:13AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > Marcus> Correct. I would like to see the proposal revived, with the > Wold it not have been better to talk first, and shoot > afterwards? At the moment, there is no provision for reviving > proposals that have been killed by formal objections. > > I am not sure it would be wise in the long term to create such > a provision anyway.
Erm. In another post you say that the policy update proposal is just a guideline and doesn't have the weight of policy. Here you're saying that it's Just Not Possible to do anything not given in the guidelines. This doesn't seem to make sense. I'd also like to add that "calling for a hold" on a proposal and "objecting" to a proposal seem like *very* different things to me. And at the very least, it seems that objections should be able to be withdrawn when their shown to be unfounded. Are you willing to reopen the proposal, or would you rather someone else open a new one on the same topic? Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/> I don't speak for anyone save myself. PGP encrypted mail preferred. ``The thing is: trying to be too generic is EVIL. It's stupid, it results in slower code, and it results in more bugs.'' -- Linus Torvalds
pgp1BJ9KR1h4h.pgp
Description: PGP signature
