Hmm yeah that's a good point. I guess the RFC would be to document what the procedure is; and, if there's not a procedure, then to establish one for consistency. I'm all for meritocracy for OOP project admins but if there's no established "process" for determining who goes into that inner circle I just don't think that's healthy IMHO.
Either way, if there is a process for selecting them, somebody else will need to document it on the wiki because I have no idea what it is or if it even exists. --Kris On Sat, Mar 3, 2012 at 3:48 PM, Ferenc Kovacs <tyr...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Sun, Mar 4, 2012 at 12:28 AM, Kris Craig <kris.cr...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Lol well personally I disagree. I was super-stoked when the RFC process >> was introduced and I would LOVE to see us make more use of it! Not only >> does it help get a clearer guage of vote totals, but it also forces >> proposals to be more explicit and well-thought-out IMHO. >> >> Of course that's only my opinion. If other people say they'd like to see >> that too then I'll propose something, otherwise I'll just mutter under my >> breath and leave it alone. ;P >> >> > the RFC process covers how do we introduce changes. > nothing to change here imo. > of course if you think that this info would be useful for others, feel > free to document it in the wiki. > > -- > Ferenc Kovács > @Tyr43l - http://tyrael.hu >
