| 1 |
On Sun, Jan 15, 2017 at 7:58 AM, Aaron Bauman <bman@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> It seems the developer community at large may need to revisit and vote on |
| 4 |
> such a change for GLEP39. Assuming it is deemed important enough to pursue. |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
Nobody is going to organize such an action over a matter this trivial. |
| 8 |
I'm not saying they can't, just that I'd be shocked if it happened. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
And hence my point that deciding not to take any action is effectively |
| 11 |
a decision that leads are not necessary, since nobody is empowered to |
| 12 |
actually do anything over the lack of a lead. And that suits me fine |
| 13 |
anyway. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
I did clearly state that I didn't think the Council should change the |
| 16 |
wording of GLEP39. It would merely clarify what it means. And |
| 17 |
obviously it would take into account any opinions expressed by the |
| 18 |
developer community at large. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
On a side note, I think there is far too much tendency in these |
| 21 |
debates to hold ourselves to decisions made a long time ago by |
| 22 |
entirely different people. When big issues come up people ask |
| 23 |
questions like "what did those people who only a few of us even have |
| 24 |
ever talked to mean when they wrote xyz" or "what would Daniel do" and |
| 25 |
so on. While sometimes understanding historical perspective can be |
| 26 |
useful I don't consider ourselves bound by it. Ultimately how we |
| 27 |
govern ourselves today is up to the developers of today. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
-- |
| 30 |
Rich |
Archives