Tom Lane wrote: > Magnus Hagander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> Marko Kreen wrote: >>> Because of the bad timing it would have been -core call anyway >>> whether it gets in or not so Jan asked -core directly. That's >>> my explanation about what happened, obviously Jan and Tom have >>> their own opinion. > >> Right. I can see your point, but it's my understanding that -hackers is >> really the ones supposed to decide on this. > > It would ultimately have been core's decision, but the discussion should > have happened on -hackers. There was no reason for it to be private.
Hmm. I thought that -core doesn't decide on things like these, they just "vote" on -hackers and have no special powers (other than being very respected community members that we all listen to, of course). I seem to recall hearing all the time (most often from people on core, but I'm certainly one of the people who relay that information further) that core specifically *doesn't* decide on things like that (being direct technical issues, or just the talk about the name-change that's been flooding -advocacy), but that core are only there for "dealing with companies that don't want to deal in public", and for making decisions "if -hackers can't agree", security sensitive stuff, and things like that. It may be that it just was like that before, and isn't anymore, and my information is outdated. I don't mind, really, because I certainly trust -core to make good decisions. But if that's so, then at least I have to change what I tell people that ask... //Magnus ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
