I support either of these team proposals, assuming the prospective members
agree. -- Darren Duncan
On 2016-10-13 1:42 PM, Peter Rabbitson wrote:
It was suggested elsewhere I am against any "core team" plan. This is entirely
As an *EXAMPLE* (I have not spoken to either of the poor saps below), a team
similar to that would get several +1's from me:
If the number "5" is magical in some way, and diluting responsibility further is
desirable: destabilize it a bit more, e.g.
As a community you seem to want prioritization of stability. Then why aren't you
clamoring for a team that *mostly* leans towards stability *naturally*? I do not
understand why settle for an illusion of a working group fully controlled by
someone who demonstrably optimizes, and went on record intending to continue
optimizing for progress for the sake of progress.
Searchable Archive: http://firstname.lastname@example.org