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 |