Neil Schneider wrote: > Andrew Lentvorski wrote: >> James G. Sack (jim) wrote: >> >>> I have a strong bad feeling about making the expenditure (of such a >>> large fraction of our treasury) without general-group notification >>> and >>> allowing some reaction time. >> I think I agree. Notifying the group at a meeting before going >> forward >> is probably a good thing as there are some people who do not subscribe >> to the mailing lists. >> >> I am disinclined to put further discussion about this on the main >> mailing list. Anyone who is on the list and cares should have >> followed >> the discussion to -steer as we pointed out. >> >> However, the longer I think about it, the less inclined I am to put it >> to an official vote at a meeting. I think I would rather let the >> reaction to the proposal guide our actions rather than a vote. >> >> An official vote could have polarizing ramifications when we could >> probably address any truly major objections in a much more >> accommodating >> fashion. > > I'm also disinclined to put it to a vote. It would be > counterproductive at this time. I just checked, and there are 47 > subscribers to this list. That is more than generally show up for > meetings. > >>> If no one else wishes to, I would be willing to write the steering >>> committee report/recommendation. Even though I had been lobbying for >>> lower-end goods, I would certainly report the general consensus, and >>> that there is no significant dissent. >> That would probably be a good thing.
I gather you (apl) are taking me up on my offer. Give me another day or so. I will post my draft here, for discussion. > > I have no objection. It probably would be a good thing to summarize > the discussion and reasoning for our choice. Perhaps you should post > it here for review and comment, before posting it to the main list.If > I forget, remind me at the next meeting. I will make an announcement. > Perhaps some short mention on the front of the web site, would be > appropriate, when we get closer to having the server in place. > I also think a vote is a _not_ required -- and, in fact, undesirable procedure in informal settings such as our general meetings. I had in mind a report saying what the steerage recommended and some PR words about benefits and reasoning, what it will cost, and when it will happen. As you say, an announcement (not a question). As you suggest, a posting to the main list, and mention in the website meeting announcement (and in the announcemeister messages) seem reasonable. As usual in our meetings, anyone who wishes should be allowed to comment. General disapproval should be honored as vetoing the decision. I fully expect there to be a general expression of approval. In the unlikely case of serious clamor to reopen discussion, I suggest that Dear Leader (/ex solium/) refer the matter back to steerage for (say) one [or two?] further week[s] of discussion, and invite the objectors to make their case in that forum. My guess of the most likely of any negative reactions might be someone or some small number who claim that insufficient notice was given of the discussion. I would recommend a gentle response, something like: I'm sorry you missed or misinterpreted the messages about the undertaking of these discussions in the steering committee. The discussions were and are public, and are available for your review in the list archives. But if you still feel strongly about not having a chance to speak your opinion, we can .. <refer back to committee, as above>. Do you (objector) wish us to do that? Do you (meeting attendees) think that it would be fair to do that? I suspect this is probably all unnecessary worrying, but .. <what me?>. Regards, ..jim -- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-steer
