1 |
>>>>> On Wed, 21 Mar 2012, Brian Harring wrote: |
2 |
|
3 |
> On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 09:09:10AM +0100, Ulrich Mueller wrote: |
4 |
>> Actually, my plan was not only to discuss 2?, but to vote on it in |
5 |
>> the same meeting. |
6 |
|
7 |
> No point in jumping the gun. Frankly considering the issues of the |
8 |
> various proposals haven't really been fully fleshed out up until |
9 |
> that wiki page (prior, they were at best in PM authors heads), |
10 |
|
11 |
Right, but at least I won't "fully flesh out" all five of them (not |
12 |
counting variants), if it's clear that four of these five are for the |
13 |
dustbin. Refining each of them to the level that's appropriate for a |
14 |
GLEP or for inclusion in PMS means quite some work. |
15 |
|
16 |
I'd rather see the vote at the next meeting as a recommendation that |
17 |
such or such proposal should be worked out in detail. Meaning one of |
18 |
the proposals if there's a clear majority, or maybe two if the |
19 |
decision is split. The council would need to vote on it again for its |
20 |
final acceptance. |
21 |
|
22 |
> and that's not counting the level of misunderstandings people had |
23 |
> about it (and likely still do). I'd rather see people properly |
24 |
> consider it rather than try to fit it into a single council meeting. |
25 |
|
26 |
We should of course assume that council members will be prepared and |
27 |
consider it before the meeting. ;-) Certainly it wouldn't be very |
28 |
efficient use of the time if all details of the different proposals |
29 |
would have to be explained during the meeting. |
30 |
|
31 |
Ulrich |