On Sat, 5 Jun 2004, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
>
> Marc G. Fournier wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 5 Jun 2004, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>>
>>> No, I think that was the right time to make a decision. Before that
>>> things were in a great state of flux. My suggestion is that there should
>>> be some minimum time (I suggested 6 weeks to 2 months) between when the
>>> decision is made/announced and the actual freeze date. In the present
>>> case we would have probably have ended up with a date very like what we
>>> now have, but without the June 1 false start, which many (including me)
>>> felt tried to set the date too early and gave insufficient notice to
>>> those who wanted to make the cut.
>>
>>
>> Except, as some have already mentioned, the June 1st "false start" as you
>> put it, was never a surprise ... *shrug*
>>
>>
>
> We've been aropund this block already, so I'm not going to continue. If you
> think the process is working just fine then don't change it. I don't, but
> then I am not in a position to make the decisions.
Note that I do agree with several of the suggestions and points that have
been made concerning this ... I also agree that the knowledge was not
known by everyone ... the point is/was that some were working to the June
1st freeze ... for next release, we need to make sure that everyone is
working to the same freeze ...
----
Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664