On Sun, Mar 23, 2008 at 8:17 AM, Leiv Hellebo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Chris has replied to you on the history and the officialness of the CSG, > I'll answer more directly. > > Brian Schweitzer wrote: > Not to be totally sidetracked, though, the > point here you may think is > > unimportant, but I would disagree. If we go around saying that this > > or that guideline is unofficial just because it never went through > > this or that proposal process, we'll never get anything done. > > Partially, esp with regards to CSG, the reason I reacted is because I > > have myself run into situations where even autoeditors have made the > > claim that "that guideline isn't technically official, so we're free > > to disregard it". Open that door for classical, and we'll have chaos, > > where what I think we all would love is to find a way to make both > > sets of classical guidelines, for tracks and works, happen. > > With regards to the SMP, this thread has brought up two (perhaps three) > arguments to follow the CSG for it: > 1) More information is better information > 2) The CSG should be followed because it is the CSG > > (There's also Andrew's argument, but I think it'll be hard to make an > official guide out of it ;) > Wait, what? :)
_______________________________________________ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
