Re: RE: High resolution timer function

On 5 January 2018 at 10:38, Dan Ackroyd <danack@basereality.com> wrote: > On 2 January 2018 at 13:55, Peter Cowburn <petercowburn@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > Why is this bypassing the RFC process? > > That's a very good question. > > Although I'm pretty sure an RFC for this would pass unanimously, stuff > should have to go through voting rather than relying on no-one > shouting loudly enough. > Just as a counter-point to this, I understand that many (Westminster style?) parliaments have mechanisms to skip uncontroversial votes by first requiring a show of hands or voices, and only "dividing the house" (making everyone get up and register their formal votes) if there is dissent. I think Anatol's intent here is similar: if anyone says "Nay", we can proceed with an RFC and vote; but if it's already unanimous, why spend the time, when we could be moving onto other business? Regards, -- Rowan Collins [IMSoP]