On 12/01/2008, Earle Martin <wikipedia(a)downlode.org> wrote:
On 12/01/2008, geni <geniice(a)gmail.com> wrote:
No. There are a dozen apparently simple hopes
that could be put up
that would be near imposible to jump through.
Your endlessly alluding to things is tedious to the extreme. Kindly
put your money where your mouth is and tell us, why don't you?
The foundation would be taking quite a risk by telling arbcom no but
they could always state:
Move evidence of community consensus is need
There are still unanswered question (to start with the ones they didn't ask)
The foundation feels it needs to take soundings from other/more
groups(any idea how long it would take to get a comment from every
single project?)
Arbcom haven't provided enough detail as to how the changes should be made
More effort needs to be made to explain the issues to the community
Arbcom failed to consider all the possibilities
Arbcom need to do more to justify the form their consultation has taken.
Then we have timing:
The foundation is unable to give the matter the consideration it needs
until the upcoming elections have been completed
The foundation is unable to give the matter the consideration it needs
until the newly elected memebers have settled in.
The foundation wishes to wait until after the next arbcom elections so
as to be able to consider the views of the new arbcom members
The foundation is unable to give the matter the consideration it needs
until the audit/move/whatever has been completed
The foundation has passed instructions along to the devs and the
changes will be made once higher priority code fixes have been made.
Will that do to start with?
--
geni