On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 8:09 AM, Lucas Nussbaum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Actually, the more I think about it, the more I think that your > formulation for the now-only option in this GR is too complex. > It mixes many different questions: > - do you want to thank Joerg Jaspert for raising this topic now? > - should the proposal be considered finalized? do you support it? > - is it OK if the DAM just decides to change membership management in > the project by himself, without waiting for consensus? > > What if I don't want to thank Ganneff, because it was clearly bad > timing, but I support the ideas in his proposal, but I don't want DAM to > decide without consensus, because I believe that it's too important?
> I'm considering re-proposing Charles' initial proposal to provide a > clear option for (A), and maybe also providing an option for (B). I think that the main problem with Charles proposal was that it was too aggressive. If you can provide options that are not aggressive but still convey the meaning you want, I guess you'll get the needed seconds easily I do agree that we need something extra, otherwise the meaning of "Further Discussion" is really obscure. -- Besos, Marga -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
