On Sun, 1 Aug 1999, Julian Gilbey wrote: > > Hi, > > >>"Julian" == Julian Gilbey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > >> What exactly is required to "resurrect" a proposal? Is it required to > > wait > > >> some amount of time since it was rejected? > > > > Julian> I don't know. Sufficient interest might be sufficient, but > > Julian> we should > > Julian> ask Manoj. > > > > Umm. What would people say to having to ask for seconds all > > over again, and an expectation that there would be an explanation why > > the proposer thinks that the new proposal is likely to succeed when > > the old one did not? (I don't want to have us mandate that, but it is > > reasonable, is it not?) > > > > So, if folks agree to this, I would say that we need the > > proposer and seconds (and an explanation) in place before the status > > of the bug is changed. Comments? > > The old proposal was made years (?) ago, and died among the others > which were expired due to lack of interest. And now here's some > interest. If it's formally proposed again, I'll second it.
Ok, since the procedure for amending policy was not in place when the bug was submitted years ago, I think it is ok to make a proposal from it now. I hereby formally propose that we add ispell-dictionary to the list of virtual packages for "Anything providing a dictionary suitable for ispell". I am now looking for seconds for this proposal. Thanks. -- "128600f74768469264ff4c64191dae5e" (a truly random sig)
