Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > It depends. Being able to reach consensus may make it easier for the > soc-ctte to look at the situation and go "there's strong disagreement here > and even if we're mostly on one side, we realize that and we should decide > that we can't really intervene." [...]
This raises a question. I assumed that soc-ctte would intervene somehow on any issue referred to them, even if it is just to say "let the existing processes stand". If it ends up at soc-ctte, there is a problem to resolve. However, the above suggests that if soc-ctte is weakly divided (mostly on one side), it shouldn't intervene. What should be soc-ctte's default position? To do nothing, or to announce their (maybe-weak) support for the existing situation? As you may know, I believe that ignoring problems is a bug, so I'd expect soc-ctte to make decisions, even if mostly null, rather than do nothing. If it will mostly do nothing, is it worth creating it? Regards, -- MJ Ray http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html tel:+44-844-4437-237 - Webmaster-developer, statistician, sysadmin, online shop builder, consumer and workers co-operative member http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ - Writing on koha, debian, sat TV, Kewstoke http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]