| 1 |
On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 3:54 AM, Petteri Räty <betelgeuse@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 07/12/2010 12:56 AM, Doug Goldstein wrote: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
>> I remember very clearly as you and I were both council members at the |
| 5 |
>> time. My point is that this discussion does not need to even happen |
| 6 |
>> and the council shouldn't even remotely be involved here. |
| 7 |
>> |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> I assumed the best way to change policy would be to ask council to rule |
| 10 |
> on it. Of course we could just see if we can get a consensus fast |
| 11 |
> without council. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
There is no change of policy and there is no reason for the council to |
| 14 |
be involved. He can change the eclass how he needs and that's the end |
| 15 |
of the story. The council does not need to be involved at every |
| 16 |
potential crossroad. The council only needs to be involved when a |
| 17 |
potential technical issue arises. No technical issue, proceed ahead. |
| 18 |
No need for the council to road block. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
e.g. if its not in the "rule" book you can do it. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
This is vastly different then your interpretation of the council's |
| 23 |
mandiate, Petteri, which is "if its not in the rule book go ask |
| 24 |
permission". |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
Hence my point of saying let developers develop instead of telling |
| 27 |
them they need to ask permission and wait 4 weeks while it gets on an |
| 28 |
agenda list everytime they want to commit to the tree or blow their |
| 29 |
nose or boot up their computer. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
-- |
| 32 |
Doug Goldstein |
Archives