Hi Thomas,
I mostly refrained from interpreting the results, and just
mentioned my personal impression. I think that just looking at the poll outcome,
everybody can get a good impression themselves. And Ed -- I don't think the poll
polarizes, because everybody had multiple votes and those who voted extreme,
also had votes in the middle.
Surely, a sample of 35 people is not large enough (but then
the people who did participate are prominent people from across a good sample of
Galileo projects). Surely, my questions were not specifically worded towards
Galileo (since from an AC point of view, I was more interested in the general
question).
But at any rate, if your option (b) is indeed true and
people didn't care to participate, then for me this is a signal that the PC is
doing the right thing by not making the train a Community event with everybody
engaged in discussions -- since nobody would want to spend time on that anyways.
What the PC is doing instead, is deciding this at the PMC level, which is
certainly more efficient than the democratic Community
variant.
Sounds rude? You can get engaged via your
PMC's, and it's likely more efficient than discussing this over and over by
E-Mail.
Cheers,
--
Martin Oberhuber, Senior Member of Technical
Staff, Wind River
Target Management Project
Lead, DSDP PMC Member
Oberhuber, Martin wrote:
35 people participated,
the majority voting for "Guidance" through rules and "Ok to have rules since
we all gain from the train". Looks like the PC is doing the right thing
after all. Thanks, Planning
Council!
Maybe that is jumping to
conclusions? Don't forget that there are over 900 committers that didn't vote
at all. What does that mean?
a) They didn't vote because they all agree
with PMC's decisions
b) They didn't vote because they want to spend as
little time as possible on rules and bureaucracy
My guess would be the
latter for the most part and that the 35 that did vote have an interest in
this that is way above average.
Just my 0.02$
Thomas
Hallgren