From: E.L. W. <eg...@sc...> - 2003-06-27 09:25:21
|
On Friday 27 June 2003 11:18, Christoph Steinbeck wrote: > E.L. Willighagen wrote: > > Mmmm.... taking it formally, that is not possible... > > but we must resolve the issue... > > > > For now, would you have voted in favor or against? > > If there are many people who would have liked to vote against, > > then we need to replace these RFC's with new ones.... > > No, I would vote in favor, of course. Otherwise I should have written > something in the dicsussion a long time ago. My point is simply that I > agree with you about the poor number of votes and that it makes our > descision making process weaker. Ok. > > Ok, we need to replace RFC #1 then... with a similar RFC stating a voting > > period of at least 2 weeks... would that be enough? > > If you as the voting master could just "forget" the evaluation for one > more week, the original proposal could be kept. :-) > But if having one obsolete RFC is no problem with you, No, it isn't... this obsoleting mechanism is described in RFC #1: http://cdk.sourceforge.net/rfc1.html > we could also > have new RFC on an elongates voting period, maybe with some "reminder > email" every couple of days. Yes, agreed... I will post an new RFC soon which will be based on RFC #1 and takes into account: 1. a 2 week minimum voting period 2. strong advisory for reminder posts... > I guess, most people would acutally like to vote but postpone it again > and again. Yes, maybe... to all: what was your reason for not voting? Egon |