| 1 |
On 22:37 Fri 06 Feb , Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Fri, 6 Feb 2009 14:33:44 -0800 |
| 3 |
> Donnie Berkholz <dberkholz@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
> > > Does returning to 4-hour meetings mean things will no longer keep on |
| 5 |
> > > getting postponed for 'further discussion' that will never happen |
| 6 |
> > > because the meeting ran one second over its allocated time? |
| 7 |
> > |
| 8 |
> > If they never happen, apparently the people desiring discussion don't |
| 9 |
> > care enough to continue bringing it up on the list ... |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> So you suggest that when the Council postpones something for further |
| 12 |
> discussion, the Council does in fact not desire further discussion? |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
I am trying to say that in the generic sense, people who want something |
| 15 |
to happen need to drive that change. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
Perhaps it needs to be made clear when further discussion should be |
| 18 |
initiated by the people who want the discussion to happen. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
-- |
| 21 |
Thanks, |
| 22 |
Donnie |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
Donnie Berkholz |
| 25 |
Developer, Gentoo Linux |
| 26 |
Blog: http://dberkholz.wordpress.com |
Archives