Le Sun, Nov 02, 2008 at 10:34:14PM +0100, Frans Pop a écrit : > > The main question is: does the project think DAM should be allowed to > start implementing the proposal posted to d-d-a, or should the project as > a whole decide on the future direction of the NM process and related > processes. IMO that issue is addressed adequately in the open GR.
Le Mon, Nov 03, 2008 at 12:18:11AM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum a écrit : > > I'm fine with voting with only the current option on the ballot, but > that will probably translate in people abstaining because they don't > agree, neither with the only option, nor with FD (which is the de facto > "go ahead"). Hi all, I do not think that the only interpretation of a rejected GR is the contrary of its option(s). For instance, people can vote "Further Disucssion" because the text suggests that Joerg has the power to make the decisions he posted, despite they think that he has not. At the moment, only two persons asked for an option that clearly invites to Joerg to go ahead, and they did not get seconds. If this GR would be rejected, I dont't think that one can speak for the silent majority and interpret their votes in one or the other direction. This said, I still hope that Joerg could send a clarification that what he presented is not yet an official policy, and that he will follow consensus or propose changes through a GR. With this we could avoid the current vote. Have a nice day, -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
