> That's not quite fair. > > For me, to be honest, I couldn't quite understand the question at > all... I had a real hard time parsing it. It looked like, by voting +1, > I would also be agreeing to other things (like disallowing > any new features or enhancements to any release) which > would be unacceptable.
+1. I’d be uneasy about that clause without a much more in-depth review of its context, which isn’t going to work as a mailinglist discussion (too confusing; TL;DR). At the same time, I applaud what Bill is trying to do. We have a problem, we discuss it, the discussion goes nowhere, Bill makes a valiant effort to take it somewhere. But the context is complex: an existing process, multiple overlapping mailinglist discussion threads, multiple candidate ideas. And I’m not convinced the proposed clause actually resolves the issues: it may just leave us with a more complex process. Sorry if the above is negative. I promise to try and contribute a positive suggestion! — Nick Kew
