Hey Gabber,
Gabriel Wicki <[email protected]> writes: > Hey there! > > I'd like to address the issue of the state of GCD007 here, once and for > > Or we could > > - be less strict about timings, dismiss Greg's disapproval (since they > failed to explain where the discussion should be started from in a > future round—as required by the GCD process), set GCD007's state to > `accepted' and implement its innovations. That Greg's comments are not understood by you or few others doesn't necessarily mean that they failed to explain it. Waving out someone's disapproval definitely does not seem to me like something to do when this is the first 'round' of this GCD and the first time Greg has done this, so there is no evidence Greg would want to just boycott the process and I think their voice should be heard. To me it seems Greg actually wants to reach consensus and feels unheard with their comments. Especially since the result is so close to the 25 % limit - consider looking at the GCD 006 that happened in similar period, 40 team members replied, so it doesn't seem the reason for that would be that the people are not available, presumably the issue is elsewhere -, and there is a disapproval, it seems to me to be obvious this GCD has not been successful to reach consensus. If we wave out both deadlines and disapproval here, that seems like laughing at what the GCD process has established. I understand that it can be frustrating to you since you have spent so much time on it, but it's not the time to just throw the process to the trash. I would rather think it's more sensible to give the GCD one more try, after changing it to everyone's (including Greg's liking), rather than sidestepping the process. Rutherther
