On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 6:16 PM, Philip Brown <[email protected]> wrote: > That being said, I fail to see how the Secretary has "a duty" to > protect a procedure that was never officially made a procedure of the > organization in the first place.
Regardless of duties I feel it is important that the current proposal stand on its own. We need to make some progress and that requires a clear and unambiguous vote. Allowing a myriad of choices would simply split the vote. If one cannot vote for the proposal as written then choose to deny or abstain. Further, the review process is not critical to the success of failure of determining our goals of implementing an automated release process. This proposal neither support or denies the possibility of creating a review process in the future. Phil, I would suggest you write up a proposal to cover the review process as you see fit. Please remember it will be voted upon by a broad audience and therefore must meet that audiences needs and desires. _______________________________________________ maintainers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.opencsw.org/mailman/listinfo/maintainers .:: This mailing list's archive is public. ::.
