On Thu, Jul 29, 1999 at 01:39:14PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > I think I am beginning to think that the formal objection > clause is a mistake. Here you are, cutting off any discussion on > this, no effort to seek a compromise, just a flat, uncompromising > ultimatum that shall kill any move on this matter just because you > disagree.
I was not aware that a formal objection is a veto (let's face it, the policy guidelines are poorly worded, as they read like a proposal, with "perhaps we should"'s everywhere and with little structure to help digesting the thing). I agree such a clause is bad. I was more thinking of the "dissenting opinion" convention used in formal meetings, where the record will show that I was against such a move, should the motion pass anyway. My position on the original matter is unchanged. Things one must not do must not be sanctioned by policy: I must be able to trust the policy documents to be an accurate description of what I can and should do. I will not veto a violation of this principle but I will be demanding that my dissenting opinion be entered into whatever records we keep on Policy amendments. -- %%% Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho % [EMAIL PROTECTED] % http://www.iki.fi/gaia/ %%% "... memory leaks are quite acceptable in many applications ..." (Bjarne Stroustrup, The Design and Evolution of C++, page 220)
