Re: soc-ctte default position, was: electing multiple people

On Fri, Oct 19, 2007 at 08:33:03PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote: > > > Personally, I expect soc-ctte to do something to support the existing > > > situation when they think it's fair overall. We've seen situations > > > where doing nothing has allowed complaints to fester. > > > > Well, that's like saying

Re: soc-ctte default position, was: electing multiple people

Josip Rodin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, Oct 19, 2007 at 01:48:44PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote: [...] > > Personally, I expect soc-ctte to do something to support the existing > > situation when they think it's fair overall. We've seen situations > > where doing nothing has allowed complaints to

Re: soc-ctte default position, was: electing multiple people

On Fri, Oct 19, 2007 at 01:48:44PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote: > > > I assumed that soc-ctte would intervene somehow on any issue referred > > > to them, even if it is just to say "let the existing processes stand". > > > If it ends up at soc-ctte, there is a problem to resolve. > [...] > > > What should

Re: soc-ctte default position, was: electing multiple people

Josip Rodin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, Oct 10, 2007 at 11:02:09AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote: [...] > > I assumed that soc-ctte would intervene somehow on any issue referred > > to them, even if it is just to say "let the existing processes stand". > > If it ends up at soc-ctte, there is a probl