Hi Goffi,

I'm not sure if I'm understanding your disagreement? I was trying to say that I hope that Board could find a compromise (which I think is what you're also saying) so that one proposal (that facilitates existing processes) does not need to be delayed/postponed until another proposal (to migrate such processes to different infrastructure) has been worked out. In that sense "one [proposal] should not need to block the other [proposal]" in the sense that both can be developed in parallel. I was certainly not trying to imply that people are blocking each-other, if that is how my comment came across.

Kind regards,

Guus

On Thu, Aug 28, 2025 at 2:22 PM Goffi <goffi@goffi.org> wrote:

Hello,

Le jeudi 28 août 2025, 10:21:38 heure d’été d’Europe centrale Guus der
Kinderen a écrit :
> [SNIP] One should not need to block the other.

Rest of the discussion put aside, I very much disagree with this. Board and
Council members have been elected for a limited period, and the very basis of
a consensus is that one can veto a decision.

This is not solved by pressuring the person who disagree, saying "you should
not block the others", but by discussion and evolution of the proposition, or
the idea people have of it, or both until a consensus is found.

Best,
Goffi_______________________________________________
Standards mailing list -- standards@xmpp.org
To unsubscribe send an email to standards-leave@xmpp.org