>>>>> "Don" == Don Armstrong <d...@debian.org> writes:
Don> OK. So assuming this is the case, does option B in the draft
Don> now represent your view? Or is option A sufficient?
Assuming that the discussion plays out as I suspect, I'd probably vote
a=b>z>c
If it's clear from the log that we thought about the effort the policy
team put in and reached the conclusion of the majority of that team,
actually saying we think they reached consensus is not a huge deal to
me.
however, if we reach a different conclusion, I think we need to say a
lot more in order to avoid a feeling of worthlessness of the process and
disappointment when thinking of the time put in.
For me to be happy we'd need to say something like
1) We support Bill's action because objection x was raised during the
process and not adequately addressed.
Or
2) We appreciate the work that went into the process. However we have a
duty to actually evaluate the technical aspects of the policy under the
constitution. When we made that evaluation, we found these concerns
that were not adequately addressed and so the policy is Bill's proposal.
Or something that explained why we reached a different conclusion.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-ctte-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive:
https://lists.debian.org/0000014e23b55246-47c34b10-f127-4742-8d11-9a542ee7a6ef-000...@email.amazonses.com
