Re: Meeting log for 2008-12-17

Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> On Fri, 2008-12-19 at 16:27 +0000, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > Joshua D. Drake writes ("Re: Meeting log for 2008-12-17"):
> > > On Fri, 2008-12-19 at 10:13 +0000, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > > > For other kinds of resolutions there are of course other isomorphic
> > > > problems. That is why THE MEMBERSHIP MUST BE GIVEN THE CHANCE TO
> > > > COMMENT!
> > >
> > > Wouldn't it make sense to make this argument on -private, where the
> > > contributing members are?
> >
> > No, because discussions should be in public if there is no reason for
> > them to be private. We had already agreed that, surely ? I can't
> > seem to find a resolution about it right now.
> >
>
> I recall a motion that said we should discuss on private (I could be off
> my rocker) but the thing is... the *only* people that can do anything
> about what you are arguing is contributing members. E.g; they are the
> ones that can vote. So -general may consider this noise.
>
> I don't know honestly but what I do know is that there are many
> contributing members that do not bother to read let alone subscribe to
> -general.

It's easy to paint the bikeshed of what list to give notice to. It
would be a lot better to have an answer to the actual gripe:

> > > > For other kinds of resolutions there are of course other isomorphic
> > > > problems. That is why THE MEMBERSHIP MUST BE GIVEN THE CHANCE TO
> > > > COMMENT!

Any thoughts on that?

--
Alvaro Herrera http://www.flickr.com/photos/alvherre/
"Ciencias políticas es la ciencia de entender por qué
los políticos actúan como lo hacen" (netfunny.com)