Leo Sutic wrote:
THE ISSUES
I see no issues other than the question of how the process is
described.
we also discussed the issue of providing the procedure as an additional
"safety net" in case of problems, vs placing trust in the existing
safety net, and each other. I feel real strongly about that one :D
OK, so can these two be reconciled? I think so. But before I start
with that, I'd like to pose a few questions:
1. Do I have the latest documents referred to in the beginning?
Like Steve said, he has a "patch" to the layman version.
2. Is my understanding that the actual process described by the
proposals are equivalent correct? That is, are we only arguing
over how the process is written down, or is there any
disagreement as to the process itself?
the "how" of process description can affect community dynamics, can
affect how you look to the outside world, can affect how different
people take part. So not only the process, but also the "how" is important.
3. Am I correct in my description of the goal of the layman version?
yes.
4. Am I correct in my description of the goal of the strict version?
Especially, the assertion that the purpose of the strict-ness
is to be able to resolve disagreements by looking in the text?
yes.
Finally, a few notes:
If you let me, I intend to run this discussion as I ran the
"Context Consensus" thread(s). That means:
+ Regular summaries of all viewpoints
+ A long period where we keep this as a regular thread,
a while as a proposal, and finally a vote that should be nothing
more than a formality.
sounds good to me.
cheers,
- Leo
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
