Josip Rodin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, Oct 10, 2007 at 11:02:09AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote: [...] > > 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. [...] > > What should be soc-ctte's default position? To do nothing, or to > > announce their (maybe-weak) support for the existing situation? [...] > This is getting needlessly intricate - most people won't care for the > difference between doing nothing and formally deciding to do nothing :)
Please don't be daft. That's not my suggestion: it's the difference between doing nothing and doing something to support the existing situation. Also, I think soc-ctte should do, not formally decide. There are lots of project practices, both formal and informal, and written and customary, which will pre-date soc-ctte and I expect some of them will be challenged by referring to soc-ctte. Some of those will split soc-ctte, if it represents the project at all well, so I think we need to try to be clear about what we want from soc-ctte in those cases. Personally, I expect soc-ctte to do something to support the existing situation when they think it's fair overall. We've seen situations where doing nothing has allowed complaints to fester. > But, we've strayed from the topic of debian-vote, let's move this back to > debian-project... I prefer to keep this topic on a development list, rather than hidden on a miscellaneous one. It's developers who may vote on it. Regards, -- MJ Ray http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html tel:+44-844-4437-237 - Webmaster-developer, statistician, sysadmin, online shop builder, consumer and workers co-operative member http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ - Writing on koha, debian, sat TV, Kewstoke http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
