I'm confused.
If we have rules for ourselves, we should follow them.
If we don't need them, we shouldn't have them.
If they're in the way, which they are, they should either be corrected
or abandoned.
If there's a call for "is the election legit," I'm personally fine with
it and have been.
I'm not fine with establishing rules and then discarding them,
regardless of whether we're an organisation, a small group, a gaggle,
murder, herd, or flock.
The impression I get is that a few people are going to ratify the
election because they want to. Is this also how standards are going to
be determined? If so, I'm certainly not going to waste any time or
effort participating, and that's what I mean by credibility.
Kim
On 11/12/2010 1:51 PM, Simon Wilkinson wrote:
On 12 Nov 2010, at 20:45, Kim Kimball wrote:
I think that's a fine social way to go about it.
I don't think it's the way an organization proceeds.
Fundamentally, we're not an organisation. We're a small group of people trying
to get some work done. We need to be careful that we allow our processes to
assist us in that goal, not to prevent us from achieving it.
At this point, I'm beginning to feel that Ken's original suggestion of
standardisation-by-cage-match would have been a better idea from the start.
Cheers,
Simon.
_______________________________________________
AFS3-standardization mailing list
[email protected]
http://michigan-openafs-lists.central.org/mailman/listinfo/afs3-standardization
_______________________________________________
AFS3-standardization mailing list
[email protected]
http://michigan-openafs-lists.central.org/mailman/listinfo/afs3-standardization
