Different kind of votings (Re: Taking a step back)

[John Wiegley]

>>>>> Gershom B <gershomb at gmail.com> writes:

> Even if we can’t get 100% consensus (and of course we won’t be able to), a
> continuing dialog where everyone tries to hear everyone else’s concerns and
> we try to make sure everyone is comfortable with the direction forward
> should still be the _goal_. Ideally, we will have less voting and not more,
> because ideally proposals that we move forward with will have a wide base of
> support across the board. In my mind, the way to do that is to treat each
> new library proposal case-by-case and go in willing to hear all sides,
> rather than prejudging what people’s take may be, why they might have such a
> take, etc.

I very much agree, Gershom.

John