Tom Lane wrote:
> Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> writes:
>> Marko Kreen wrote:
>>> Because of the bad timing it would have been -core call anyway
>>> whether it gets in or not so Jan asked -core directly. That's
>>> my explanation about what happened, obviously Jan and Tom have
>>> their own opinion.
>
>> Right. I can see your point, but it's my understanding that -hackers is
>> really the ones supposed to decide on this.
>
> It would ultimately have been core's decision, but the discussion should
> have happened on -hackers. There was no reason for it to be private.
Hmm. I thought that -core doesn't decide on things like these, they just
"vote" on -hackers and have no special powers (other than being very
respected community members that we all listen to, of course).
I seem to recall hearing all the time (most often from people on core,
but I'm certainly one of the people who relay that information further)
that core specifically *doesn't* decide on things like that (being
direct technical issues, or just the talk about the name-change that's
been flooding -advocacy), but that core are only there for "dealing with
companies that don't want to deal in public", and for making decisions
"if -hackers can't agree", security sensitive stuff, and things like that.
It may be that it just was like that before, and isn't anymore, and my
information is outdated. I don't mind, really, because I certainly trust
-core to make good decisions. But if that's so, then at least I have to
change what I tell people that ask...
//Magnus