[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
- To: cl-technical@SU-AI.ARPA
- Subject: Voting
- From: rpg
- Date: Sat 19 Jul 1986 12:14:00 UTC
I think that Scott's proposals for timely voting are acceptable in
principle, once we get to the voting stage. I presume that there is a
lengthy discussion phase (such as is going on regarding various topics
right now on Common-Lisp) preceding the voting. One of the provisions of
the favored proposal ought to be to allow members of this committee to
`beg off' and extend discussion.
Many of the issues to be decided are trivial, and lengthy discussion
should be discouraged. I think we're in a position to recognize the
difficult decisions and to not hasten too much.
Moon's comment is important, but he could have as easily made that comment
in response to a legislative body about to adopt Robert's Rules. If we
allow indefinite debate, the result of our deliberations will be elegance
or nothing; we might as well join the EuLisp group. When time is limited
by decree, perhaps we serve the real world better, because we will always
have the clock to help us measure the urgency of our decisions.
Therefore, I second Scott's intermediate proposal, with the added
provision that any member can request a discussion delay on any