gregor herrmann writes ("Re: Reframing"): > I found and find Guillem's text very appealing; and I also can see > that people who are involved in the issue on the technical or the > policy side would like to have concrete answers to the pending > questions and guidance for moving forward. For the latter I think > that your proposal is a good approach as it tries to spell out the > compromise in concrete actions. > > So yes, for me a combination of options G and D would be (or maybe > more accurately: would have been ) helpful in finalizing my ranking > of the options given my ambivalence.
Thanks for this. No-one else has said anything. Having thought about it, I think Guillem's framing would lead me to a conclusion closer to Dmitry's E rather than my option D - but either is arguable. To make it concrete I am going to post texts of those two options. If people come forward to say they support or or both of them I will formally propose them tomorrow morning (in the hope that the Secretary and/or the DPL will allow them on the ballot). If you support either of these options enough, then please formally propose it yourself and I will second it tomorrow. If no-one else says they are in favour then I will drop this line of enquiry entirely (and consequently drop my attempt to force a delay). I do not intend either of these proposals to replace E or D, nor G. I have been avoiding reading these threads in the evening because it is bad for my sleep. So I won't see whatever followups are posted until mid-morning tomorrow UK time. Ian. -- Ian Jackson <ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> These opinions are my own. If I emailed you from an address @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk, that is a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.