RE: Continued RFC process

[Nathan Torkington]

David Grove writes:
> There has to be some kind of middle ground we can find, no?

Nobody's suggesting complete quiet.

What we're seeing is the fundamental conflict of:
 - the need for a coherent design meaning that very few people control
   the design
 - the need for openness and public involvement to avoid misdirection
   or malfeasance

Closed-for-posting mailing lists that are publically readable is the
best suggestion we've had to meet these ends so far.

Anyone have better suggestions?

Nat