| 1 |
On Wed, 2007-04-25 at 00:30 +0200, Danny van Dyk wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> In my eyes it was a policy issue. Tree-wide policies have to pass the |
| 4 |
> council in one form or the other. So why shouldn't Council care here? |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
My argument is not that Council should not care. My question is: what's |
| 7 |
the big urgency to rush a half-baked policy through? |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
> I just wonder why several people feel attacked by this decission while |
| 10 |
> the affected parties have no problem with it. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
I hope you don't mean me here, because I haven't felt attacked at all. |
| 13 |
My concern isn't a personal one. Rather, it's a question that nobody |
| 14 |
from the council has actually answered: what was the big hurry to make a |
| 15 |
decision _NOW_ without even thinking through the migration path, or for |
| 16 |
that matter without even knowing what is the actual correct way. It's |
| 17 |
fine to say that _rc_alpha_beta_p is wrong (and I happen to agree). |
| 18 |
It's another to not say what is actually right. Furthermore, if only 3 |
| 19 |
packages did the wrong thing where was the emergency? |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
> Anybody who attends the regular Council meetings and/or reads their |
| 22 |
> logs/summaries knew that this kind of decission is possible. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
To paraphrase something I've said to people on this list: just because |
| 25 |
you can does not necessarily mean that you _should_. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
I probably have more council related commentary, but I'll save that for |
| 28 |
the appropriate mailing list :) |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
I'm not trying to make you defensive, I just really would like an answer |
| 31 |
to my question, that is all. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
Thanks, |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
Seemant |
Archives