Hi Paolo, all, Paolo Vecchi wrote: > That document clearly contains another proposal which should go its own way > instead of trying to make it pass as a "merged" proposal. > The intention here (and I would very much like to support that idea), is to come up with a merged proposal, which then gets broad support.
If there's changes you believe are problematic, please interact with them. Process-wise, my call to work out a proposal how to come to a joint text (in a small circle) is still open. Having the two sides that are apparently the furthest apart, telling each other the text is not ok for the foreseeable future - is not my idea of a working process. Cheers, -- Thorsten
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
