On Sat, 5 Jun 2004, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
Marc G. Fournier wrote:
On Sat, 5 Jun 2004, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
No, I think that was the right time to make a decision. Before that things were in a great state of flux. My suggestion is that there should be some minimum time (I suggested 6 weeks to 2 months) between when the decision is made/announced and the actual freeze date. In the present case we would have probably have ended up with a date very like what we now have, but without the June 1 false start, which many (including me) felt tried to set the date too early and gave insufficient notice to those who wanted to make the cut.
Except, as some have already mentioned, the June 1st "false start" as you put it, was never a surprise ... *shrug*
We've been aropund this block already, so I'm not going to continue. If you think the process is working just fine then don't change it. I don't, but then I am not in a position to make the decisions.
Note that I do agree with several of the suggestions and points that have been made concerning this ... I also agree that the knowledge was not known by everyone ... the point is/was that some were working to the June 1st freeze ... for next release, we need to make sure that everyone is working to the same freeze ...
---- Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664
---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command (send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to [EMAIL PROTECTED])
