Anthony Towns <[email protected]> writes:
> As I understand it, formal objections are "I never want to see this
> implemented" -- and five of them are enough to say "This solution will
> not be implemented by the policy group no matter what else may happen,
> ever";
I have no idea where you came up with this. I read the proposal
policy pretty carefully when I made my own proposal a couple of months
ago, and I just double-checked them, and I see *nothing* like this!
In fact, the proposal policy is (deliberately, I thought) quite vague
on what, if anything, is the difference between a "formal" objection
and an informal one. This is all supposed to be a fairly informal
process -- things which don't have concensus are handled in other ways.
> The above was, btw, a cheap shot on my part about the formal objection.
> Chris has made it quite clear in his posts that he *is* open minded on
> the issue, as, I suspect, are most of us.
Thanks, good to know I'm not being *totally* misinterpreted here. I
agree that if you believe all this stuff about five formal proposals,
and no recourse, and all that, what I did may look harsh. But I can't
find anything like that, and Manoj was *totally* ignoring several
objections that didn't include the magic phrase "formal objection".
I see nothing really making that magic phrase special in the proposal
policy, but since I didn't want to be completely ignored like those
others, I used it. :-)
> Some of the formal wrangling seems to be getting in the way of
> finding and discussing an acceptable solution however.
I think it's just a complex issue. Those do occur once in a while. :-)
cheers
--
Chris Waters [EMAIL PROTECTED] | I have a truly elegant proof of the
or [EMAIL PROTECTED] | above, but it is too long to fit into
http://www.dsp.net/xtifr | this .signature file.
