On 24/05/2011 16:59, Philipp Wolfer wrote: > On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 5:09 PM, Dr Andrew John Hughes > <gnu_andrew-igugqlvvqircv4ilt04...@public.gmane.org> wrote: >> Sorry, but a process taking time or "being painful" is not a reason to impose >> the views of a few people on everyone else. > > I don't think that the intent of the NGS guideline updates was to > impose someone's view on everyone else. But the NGS changes are huge, > and IMHO it would have been impossible to get the guidelines right in > advance. People have to actually work with the new data model. > > I see the updated NGS guidelines as a starting point. What we now need > is the discussion here on the mailing list to improve the guidelines > and to work out how to handle all the style issues in NGS.
I'm sure it wasn't the intent, and I agree that it's important for the editor population to have some guidelines in place from the start. It's very important, certainly to me and I think also to others, that it is an open project that I am contributing to, and it's not good enough to have guidelines written by two "dictators", however benign. So now that we've reached this point, what will be the formal process by which the current provisional guidelines are validated and approved, and the arguments considered when developing previous guidelines not forgotten? _______________________________________________ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
