So, right or wrong ;-), there's a veto asking just for a bit more reflection. I think this is reasonable seen that the proposal has undergone some major changes and the Recording part hasn't really been looked at closely because, as you say yourself, the whole discussion seemed to have focussed on tracks and releases. And Nikki's proposed changes to the examples should at least be examined seriously – maybe we really can improve the wording if we have a bit more time to think about it. So instead of discussing at length whether this RFV (and this veto) are legit or not, I'd ask you to please resubmit as RFC to make things advance :-)
Chris/chabreyflint On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 12:35 AM, Andii Hughes <gnu_and...@member.fsf.org>wrote: > On 20 July 2011 18:58, Paul C. Bryan <pbr...@anode.ca> wrote: > > On Wed, 2011-07-20 at 19:12 +0200, Aurélien Mino wrote: > > > > There has been a lot of discussion on the RFC, and very recent changes to > > the proposal itself. So I was expecting that you send a second RFC, so > > things can be reexamined from scratch, rather than hurry to move this > > proposal to RFV. > > > > Furthermore technically you need a +1 on the RFC after the last text > changes > > made to the proposal before moving it to RFV: "Any changes to RFC text > prior > > to RFV clear that +1 and reset this requirement." [1] > > > > For all theses reasons I'm vetoing this proposal right now, not because I > > disagree with it, but to give us more time to think about. Please send a > > RFC2, then a RFV if no big changes are made during RFC2. > > > > I hope these grounds are determinate enough for you... > > > > While I agree with your point regarding the required +1, I disagree to > your > > grounds of requiring RFC2—there is nothing in the guidelines to my > knowledge > > that requires an “RFC2” to be issued. As I understand it, if the text is > > revised based on discussion, someone needs to +1 it again, and the clock > > resets to 7 days for council review of the newly revised text. > > > > As I understand it, it just removes the '+1': > > 'Before a RFC may move into RFV status, another style council member > must endorse it > with "+1" in an email to the style list, indicating that, in its > current state, it has been reviewed > and is acceptable to that member. Any changes to RFC text prior to RFV > clear that +1 and reset this requirement.' > > So if this is really a problem, and you don't accept the +1 on > > http://lists.musicbrainz.org/pipermail/musicbrainz-style/2011-July/012658.html > you could just +1 it now -- unless you have some real objection. > > I really don't think we need another seven days to consider something > that has so far had no objections. > > > Paul > > _______________________________________________ > > MusicBrainz-style mailing list > > MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org > > http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style > > > > > > -- > Andii :-) > > _______________________________________________ > 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
