Hi Goffi, I'm not sure if I'm understanding your disagreement? I was trying to say that I hope that Board could find a compromise (which I think is what you're also saying) so that one proposal (that facilitates existing processes) does not need to be delayed/postponed until another proposal (to migrate such processes to different infrastructure) has been worked out. In that sense "one [proposal] should not need to block the other [proposal]" in the sense that both can be developed in parallel. I was certainly not trying to imply that people are blocking each-other, if that is how my comment came across.
Kind regards, Guus On Thu, Aug 28, 2025 at 2:22 PM Goffi <[email protected]> wrote: > Hello, > > Le jeudi 28 août 2025, 10:21:38 heure d’été d’Europe centrale Guus der > Kinderen a écrit : > > [SNIP] One should not need to block the other. > > Rest of the discussion put aside, I very much disagree with this. Board > and > Council members have been elected for a limited period, and the very basis > of > a consensus is that one can veto a decision. > > This is not solved by pressuring the person who disagree, saying "you > should > not block the others", but by discussion and evolution of the proposition, > or > the idea people have of it, or both until a consensus is found. > > > Best, > Goffi_______________________________________________ > Standards mailing list -- [email protected] > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] >
_______________________________________________ Standards mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
