On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 3:47 PM, John Sonnenschein <johnsonnenschein at gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 4:43 PM, Derek Cicero <derek.cicero at sun.com> wrote: > > John Sonnenschein wrote: > > > I'm trying to come to an amicable solution here for both sides. > > > > > > What are you afraid of? If there is as much support for indiana as the > > > indiana team claims, then this resolution should have no problem > > > passing, and will serve to further the second goal ( that is, shutting > > > me and my ilk up ) since one can't argue with a clear community > > > mandate. > > > > I think the counterarguments would be: > > > > * Regardless of the vote it won't change anything and may just lead to > > dragging out the argument even further. > > not having a vote is dragging the argument out quite far in and of itself.
No it isn't. Once the OGB makes their response; it is done and over with for all intents and purposes. The only way it will be dragged out is if people continue to harp on about it. > > * The voting system is an imprecise way to gauge community sentiment > > and sets a precedent on voting for non-binding resolutions that take > > away from doing real business. > > imprecise is better than non-existing Yes, but he has a point. It's one of the reasons Debian was usurped by Ubuntu. Their community has become paralysed by their own bureaucracy resulting in failure to produce. > > Having said, that I have no problem with it being debated within the > > OGB. Perhaps giving people a concrete way to voice their displeasure > > will help move us forward. > > I'm certain of it. I'm not. -- Shawn Walker, Software and Systems Analyst http://binarycrusader.blogspot.com/ "To err is human -- and to blame it on a computer is even more so." - Robert Orben
