On Thursday, 7 March 2002 at 13:19:05 -0800, Julian Elischer wrote: > > > On Thu, 7 Mar 2002, David Greenman wrote: > >>> No, Core has just said that he doesn't because he can over-rule any change >>> in the kernel. And there is no requirement for him to justify it. >> >> That is definately *NOT* what core has said. Please go re-read our >> announcement of the SMPng tech lead appointment. We specifically indicate >> that the tech lead is obligated to provide justification for any decisions >> that he may make. > > So, where is it?
*sigh* It's not explicitly in the statement. I mentioned this point in core, and got the reply: >>> Core recognizes John Baldwin's continued hard work on the SMPng >>> project over the last 18 months. John has been informally directing >>> the SMPng project for some time and we would like to formalize the >>> arrangement. We are officially recognizing him as technical lead and >>> he will be the final arbiter of technical issues relating to SMPng. >> >> I think we should say that he is responsible to core for his >> decisions. That would deflate some of dillon's objections. > > That goes without saying. Sigh. I'm getting tired of putting that in > every last damn thing we do. This is not a differences of direction within core. We had a long discussion, and in the end it's a question of formulation. As I feared, this particular issue has been dragged up again. The text quoted above was version 5 of the draft. The final statement contained the additional text He has the authority to take those actions necessary to keep the SMPng effort on track, similar to the Security Officer's authority in the area of security. If you look back to *that* charter, you'll see that the SO is also responsible to core. Greg -- See complete headers for address and phone numbers To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message