Julian Reschke wrote:
James Graham wrote:
...
Nevertheless, for better or worse the charter puts the burden of
proof on those wishing for a formal decision to be made to
demonstrate that the decision is needed for progress. Is there a
documented reason that this particular decision was so important that
it should circumvent the usual proposal-draft-feedback-redraft cycle?
We have recently seen the ...
My understanding of that cycle (*) is that it implies that there's no
way to get something into the spec the editor doesn't want in there.
That would be a problem.
The decision making process in the charter specifically documents how to
break that cycle. The first requirement is to demonstrate that there is
a need to do so.
