| 1 |
On Fri, 2008-06-06 at 09:28 +0000, Duncan wrote: |
| 2 |
> Ferris McCormick <fmccor@g.o> posted |
| 3 |
> 20080606013721.06a5c36f@××××××××××××××.us, excerpted below, on Fri, 06 |
| 4 |
> Jun 2008 01:37:21 +0000: |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> >> 2. As one of the first priorities will be setting policy for pending |
| 7 |
> >> appeals what policy do you propose ? |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> > I'd also add two new requirements: |
| 10 |
> > 1. Any appeal must be heard and decided within xxx days; |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> Not to seem disrespectful, but "Or what?" |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
Or it succeeds. Council may not pocket veto an appeal. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> Seriously, "or the appeal automatically succeeds."? Or, "or the appeal |
| 18 |
> automatically fails."? Does it matter what the appeal is (the scope of |
| 19 |
> the question wasn't limited to the current situation, so the answer must |
| 20 |
> apply in broad scope as well)? |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
Any appeal. |
| 23 |
> I'd urge being careful here, because it a similar failure to spell out |
| 24 |
> the details that triggered what amounted to a bit of a constitutional |
| 25 |
> crisis, tho the worst now seems past, I believe with the correct decision |
| 26 |
> being made. (My thanks to all involved.) |
| 27 |
> |
| 28 |
> So the "or what" matters, as does the scope, which is why I'm asking |
| 29 |
> about it. |
| 30 |
> |
| 31 |
> -- |
| 32 |
> Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. |
| 33 |
> "Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- |
| 34 |
> and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman |
| 35 |
Regards, |
| 36 |
Ferris |
| 37 |
-- |
| 38 |
Ferris McCormick (P44646, MI) <fmccor@g.o> |
| 39 |
Developer, Gentoo Linux (Devrel, Sparc, Userrel, Trustees) |
Archives