Well, in France we recently had a presidential election and for many
people, neither of the 2 candidates selected for the 2nd round was
fully satisfactory.
For the PMC election, I'm happy to see that Unhammer who informed people
a lot when I started working on apertium about 10 years ago is a
My point isn't just about appearances though it's also about what's the
more democratic thing to do. To at least give a proper platform for the non
PMC people to say something.
Moreover, I'm really confused about all this talk of "bureaucracy". It's
one vote, which was supposed to happen anyway.
I'm also happy with either approach. I support avoiding bureaucracy,
but I get Tanmai's point about appearances. But then, being friendly
and going forward unanimously and unbureaucratically is also an
appearance :D
--
Jonathan
27 apr 2022, Ç. tarixində 08:08 tarixində Juan Pablo yazdı:
>
>
Same here! It'll be great to vote if there are more candidates taking a
step forward. But if not, I vote for avoiding bureaucracy. Candidates
can be proclaimed by unanimous consent.
best,
Juan Pablo
El 27/04/2022 a las 12:57, Kevin Brubeck Unhammer escribió:
As someone currently outside the
Yeah, but you're going to be elected to the PMC, you can't vote for no
vote. Same as me, we shouldn't be deciding that we don't need a vote.
Violates many principles :p
On Wed, Apr 27, 2022, 16:28 Kevin Brubeck Unhammer
wrote:
> Xavi Ivars čálii:
>
> > But also, voting for just to confirm (or
Xavi Ivars čálii:
> But also, voting for just to confirm (or also push back?) the only group of
> people that volunteered seems a bit useless.
>
> Maybe if someone outside the PMC gave their opinion, voting would make more
> sense. But so far, it's been only the ones in the PMC (+ Sushain +
The vote will be to confirm if this decision is fine. The same as votes for
an election (anyone in the census can vote). If there are significant no
votes, or really any no votes we can have a discussion about the next step.
If the voting is unanimous then we have a mandate from the assembly of
I'm OK with both approaches. If we want people voting, that's fine for me.
But also, voting for just to confirm (or also push back?) the only group of
people that volunteered seems a bit useless.
Maybe if someone outside the PMC gave their opinion, voting would make more
sense. But so far, it's
If the rest of the PMC is okay with it, I guess that's what we'll do. I
still propose a vote so that we can have it on the record that the assembly
of committers is okay with this decision. I get that by not replying
there's an assumed consent but it really seems iffy when there's an
election
There is precedence even in legislative bodies:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unanimous_consent
We've given ample time and updates, and we have a possible outcome that can
be achieved by unanimous consent. I say we take it and get on with the
business of forming the Foundation, which the (new)
10 matches
Mail list logo
