Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Christopher Aillon wrote:
> That makes no sense. Are you seriously telling me that you ratify
> changes that may be sub-par with the intent that they can be changed?
No but policies can be ratified with the understanding that they are not
written in stone.
> Sounds like you need to revise your ratification process (or lack
> thereof) before people should feel comfortable following anything that
> gets "voted" on.
That's a FESCo decision that I am not involved with.
I wonder if I'm the only person that got the impression you were
invovled with it based on your comments. Don't try to strongarm people
into following _draft_ policies based on the fact that you personally
_expect_ it to be ratified.