For the record - every vote has brought up some good points, but I have no idea how I could have gotten those pre-RFV. It's been almost a month since the initial RFC, and there were three days between my asking if it was okay to submit RFV4 and actually doing so. That obviously did not help. To SwissChris's credit, he did bring his objections up in response to earlier RFVs as well, the problem is simply that there seems to be no middle ground on this issue. I tried asking the people who are strongly opposed to including the rule to respond to SwissChris's comments, but without reply.
Generic discussion aside, if anyone has a suggestion on how we can resolve the discussion on giving editors the freedom to apply judgement, I would much appreciate hearing it. I can take a few big breaths, add some examples, update some language and resubmit for RFV4 - but this seems to be a controversial point. Per, SwissChris, would the two of you like to create an alternate proposal? That might move the discussion along. Regards, Jeroen On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 2:11 PM, Per Øyvind Øygard <per...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, 22 Oct 2010 16:07:46 +0530, Frederic Da Vitoria > <davito...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > This is the third time this SG gets blocked at RFV stage. I wouldn't be > > surprised if Jeroen decided he did not care any more. > > I'd rather an RFV dies than is steamrolled through without proper review. > That's obviously not what has happened here, but nevertheless it's what > the RFV process is for. The second point that SwissChris mentions is the > same I pointed out a long time ago, and one that I agree is very important > for a lot of music. Changing a passed guideline is much harder compared to > changing it during the RFV process, ref: [Trad]. > > For the record I would also like to see a few more examples, particularly > for electronic music where written == composed, and singer/songwriter > where written == lyrics and composed. Off the top of my head: > > Aphex Twin, Selected Ambient Works 85-92: > http://www.discogs.com/Aphex-Twin-Selected-Ambient-Works-85-92/release/4684 > Credited as written, but should be composed. > > Tom Waits, Swordfishtrombones: > http://www.discogs.com/Tom-Waits-Swordfishtrombones/release/408701 > Credited as written, but should be lyrics and composed. Should possibly be > mentioned that "lyrics" only applies to non-instrumental tracks (can't > remember if there are any instrumentals), but if you just use a track > example you can avoid that I guess. > > > Nikki, doesn't this mean something is wrong in our procedure? > > I don't see how correcting perceived mistakes can be seen as a problem > with the process, it's what it's there for. Obviously there there should > be a procedure in place to arbitrate between conflicting vetos where a > solution can't be reached, as well as nullifying unfounded vetos, but as > long as a good compromise can be reached then I see it as a good thing. > > As for Jeroen I hope he's not discouraged. I've wanted this AR for a long > time, it's just that if we're not careful it can very easily turn into a > catch-all for less experienced editors, especially because of its > prevalent use in modern music. > > - Per / Wizzcat > > > 2010/10/22 SwissChris <swissch...@gmail.com> > > > >> Sorry to disagree. It still doesn't look good at all to me and I have to > >> veto. > >> 1) On attributes: Using the term "songwriter/songwriting" is definitely > >> wrong after we added "librettist" (Think of a classical composer who > >> wrote > >> himself the libretto to his opera). I'd use "artist" instead of > >> "songwriter"; I don't find a better wording to replace "songwriting" > >> though > >> (Maybe just leave "work" (without "of songwriting")? Native speakers, > >> please? > >> 2) On guidelines: I would (a) like to see the "not" of "In particular, > >> these should not be used if" emphasized: '"In particular, these should * > >> not* be used if" and, most important, > >> (b) I think that the second guideline is (still) wrong. This guideline > >> whould IMO apply to the singer/songwriter cases where a song is > >> credited to > >> one single artist and should read, as suggested before: > >> "It is evident that *one [single]* artist was responsible for [both] the > >> words (libretto or lyrics) *and *(not:and/or) the music" > >> > >> Chris > >> > >> On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 10:55 PM, Brian Schweitzer < > >> brian.brianschweit...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >>> Looks great :) > >>> > >>> Brian > >>> > >>> On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 9:12 AM, Jeroen Latour > >>> <f.j.lat...@gmail.com>wrote: > >>> > >>>> Hi everyone, > >>>> > >>>> No further comments have been given on the proposal, so I am > >>>> resubmitting > >>>> it for RFV. > >>>> Main changes made since the second veto: > >>>> > >>>> 1. Added additional references to 'libretto', as appropriate. > >>>> 2. Removed the rule that 'Writer' may not be used if only one > >>>> writer > >>>> is credited. This is covered by the rule that 'Writer' may not be > >>>> used if it > >>>> is evident which subtypes should be used. > >>>> > >>>> The proposal is available at: > >>>> http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Proposal:Writer_Relationship_Type > >>>> This RFV will expire on Sunday, October 24. > >>>> > >>>> Regards, > >>>> Jeroen > >>>> > >>> > > > -- > Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/ > > _______________________________________________ > MusicBrainz-style mailing list > MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org > http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style >
_______________________________________________ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
