I'm well aware of that. Apparently you need a more definitive statement. Since no one desires that the platform come to a halt, the desired consensus will be either acceptance of the HF or reaching agreement on what needs to be changed to attain consensus. So the question stands. Do you understand it now?
Yes, the question stands. The most simple way is asking who accept what, and do only those that are accepted, once at a time:
Do you accept x?
Do you accept y?
Do you accept z?
If they cannot answer, that's inability. If they weren't asked, that's not their fault. If Steemit, inc. couldn't ask those questions, that isn't witnesses' fault. The fault of witnesses could be only that if they accept/reject a HF without digging deep what the consequences would be.
The problem is that INC asks questions like:
Do you accept x,y,z?
Do you accept a,b,c?
There will be always something in the package that will be unacceptable for someone.
I don't know why they try to reach consensus out of the blockchain. It's built-in.
Make a change, ask witnesses for HF. If they do, that's yes, if they not, that's no. Simple. Make a poll on the blockchain before new modifications, so devs won't waste their precious time making non-used code. When they get a no, put the code sideline, since witnesses changes, sometimes very quickly, and the answer could be yes next time.
I'm well aware of that. Apparently you need a more definitive statement. Since no one desires that the platform come to a halt, the desired consensus will be either acceptance of the HF or reaching agreement on what needs to be changed to attain consensus. So the question stands. Do you understand it now?
Yes, the question stands. The most simple way is asking who accept what, and do only those that are accepted, once at a time:
If they cannot answer, that's inability. If they weren't asked, that's not their fault. If Steemit, inc. couldn't ask those questions, that isn't witnesses' fault. The fault of witnesses could be only that if they accept/reject a HF without digging deep what the consequences would be.
The problem is that INC asks questions like:
Do you accept x,y,z?
Do you accept a,b,c?
There will be always something in the package that will be unacceptable for someone.
I don't know why they try to reach consensus out of the blockchain. It's built-in.
Make a change, ask witnesses for HF. If they do, that's yes, if they not, that's no. Simple. Make a poll on the blockchain before new modifications, so devs won't waste their precious time making non-used code. When they get a no, put the code sideline, since witnesses changes, sometimes very quickly, and the answer could be yes next time.
That's my answer for your question.
Well, thank you for your effort but was looking for a more real answer from those involved.