On Wed, 2008-03-12 at 08:58 -0800, Jeff Spaleta wrote: > On 12 Mar 2008 11:42:22 -0500, Jason L Tibbitts III <tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > If you have suggestions for the summary format, we can consider them > > at the next meeting. Textform: "All package names must be encoded in 7-bit ASCII chars". > I've a couple of suggestions for the packaging committee to consider > in an effort to prevent this sort of flame damage in the future. > For items that are not on your committee's agenda for discussion, but > come up during the meeting that as a group you don't feel are ready > for a vote.... your committee might think about voting to table the > issue until a formal proposal/community discussion is in place instead > of voting yes/no. This already had happened - 2 weeks ago. We had discussed this on the packaging list - Unfortunately with little results. > You then list the item as tabled and needing a > formal proposal and community discussion period in your summary. Such > summary items might produce a list discussion with much smaller > pitchforks and much cooler torches. > > You might even consider having a committee policy that any item that > comes up in discussion that can't be unanimously agreed on by the end > of that meeting automatically gets tabled until a formal, community > vetted proposal gets put forward on a subsequent meeting agenda where > you can do a formal vote. -1 Your proposal equals closing down FPC, because hardly any decision in FPC is unanimous. Ralf -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
