On Tue, Aug 6, 2019 at 1:19 PM G. P. B. <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > On Tue, 6 Aug 2019 at 19:12, Rowan Collins <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> On Tue, 6 Aug 2019 at 17:59, Chase Peeler <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > I'm not a voter, but, I have a question. If this fails, does that mean >> the >> > original RFC that passed is still in effect? >> > >> >> >> Yes, this is really ambiguous, and risks the situation being even more >> confusing than it was before. >> >> The "No" column on this RFC already includes people who voted "Yes" on the >> previous version; is this an indication that they have changed their mind >> about removing short tags, or that they prefer the original proposal? >> >> I think we urgently need to clarify this, and may need to reset the vote >> with one or more clearer questions. >> >> Regards, >> -- >> Rowan Collins >> [IMSoP] > > > This RFC supersedes the previous one as stated in the the RFC itself : " > This RFC supersedes the previous one and proposes a different deprecation > approach." meaning that the previous one is void. > I don't know why this is ambiguous and needs to be said once again. > > Just to clarify - the existence of this RFC effectively means the original never existed. > Best regards > > George P. Banyard > -- Chase Peeler [email protected]
