> I thought it was a useful idea anyway, but I could see his point. This
> should probably move to "Waiting on Author" when it happens, presuming
> that the person who wrote something is motivated to see the change
> committed. (If they weren't, why did they write it?)
Except that the implication of "waiting on author" is that, if there's
no updates in a couple weeks, we bounce it. And the author doesn't
necessarily control a bikeshedding discussion about syntax, for example.
--
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://pgexperts.com