Re: XULRunner - will be or won't be?
Christopher Aillon wrote:
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.
I am not personally involved with it. The policy is mostly documenting
the process that we have followed even in the previous release so I do
expect maintainers to take an effort to describe what the plans are.
Rahul