Hi, Ludovic Courtès <[email protected]> writes:
> Hi, > > André Batista <[email protected]> skribis: > >> OTOH, one can disapprove solely and even though we have a provision >> saying that there should have been a constructive attempt on >> consensus building, I'm under the impression that we have not been >> holding the disapproval to the same standard of effort on consensus >> building. > > I think what you describe is a loophole in the process: because whether > comments were “constructive” is somewhat subjective, it’s hard to reject > a disapproval on this ground in practice, which threatens the process. > We should look into fixing that. I suppose this is how it can look depending on your perspective, but from mine, there was no fool play in the disapproval of either GCD 007 or 008. One thing I'd like to raise is that there was some kind of pressure conveyed by some proponents of the last GCD that made it feel like a question of survival for the project, which of course raises the stakes and puts an unhealthy amount of pressure and focus on the people that had disagreements with the GCD. I'd like if we could avoid that in the future. I think whatever is at stakes, we owe it to everyone to respect their point of views and take the time needed to go through them, without implying some kind of fatal deadline. The more complex and broad the issue, the more time being needed, and ideally a proper opening up of the discussion to discuss various options/alternatives to consider as I mentioned in a previous reply to Vagrant. -- Thanks, Maxim
