On Wed, Oct 10, 2007 at 11:02:09AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > It depends. Being able to reach consensus may make it easier for the
> > soc-ctte to look at the situation and go "there's strong disagreement
> > here and even if we're mostly on one side, we realize that and we should
> > decide that we can't really intervene." [...]
>
> This raises a question.
>
> I assumed that soc-ctte would intervene somehow on any issue referred
> to them, even if it is just to say "let the existing processes stand".
> If it ends up at soc-ctte, there is a problem to resolve.
>
> However, the above suggests that if soc-ctte is weakly divided (mostly
> on one side), it shouldn't intervene.
>
> What should be soc-ctte's default position? To do nothing, or to
> announce their (maybe-weak) support for the existing situation?
>
> As you may know, I believe that ignoring problems is a bug, so I'd
> expect soc-ctte to make decisions, even if mostly null, rather than do
> nothing. If it will mostly do nothing, is it worth creating it?
This is getting needlessly intricate - most people won't care for the
difference between doing nothing and formally deciding to do nothing :)
But, we've strayed from the topic of debian-vote, let's move this back to
debian-project...
--
2. That which causes joy or happiness.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
