Re: [mb-style] RFC: New Artist Type: Project
I would obviously like to say go for option 2, but in the interests of fairness, then I think we ought to go to option 3. Joan - Original Message - From: "Robert Kaye" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "MusicBrainz style discussion" Sent: Thursday, July 13, 2006 9:59 PM Subject: Re: [mb-style] RFC: New Artist Type: Project On Jul 13, 2006, at 1:50 PM, Steve Wyles wrote: On Thu, 13 Jul 2006, Robert Kaye wrote: I did not mean to circumvent the process here -- I do apologize. Please advise if I should: 1. reset the four artists to unknown and remove the project type from the live server or 2. don't sweat it and call it a done deal or 3. Have the RFV now and if a veto appears, I will do #1. Was the impact on the libraries, applications and datafeed customers assessed? Its minimal, since the implementation was equally as minimal. We could go back just as easily. -- --ruaok Somewhere in Texas a village is *still* missing its idiot. Robert Kaye -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] --http://mayhem-chaos.net ___ 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
Re: [mb-style] RFC: New Artist Type: Project
On Jul 13, 2006, at 1:50 PM, Steve Wyles wrote: On Thu, 13 Jul 2006, Robert Kaye wrote: I did not mean to circumvent the process here -- I do apologize. Please advise if I should: 1. reset the four artists to unknown and remove the project type from the live server or 2. don't sweat it and call it a done deal or 3. Have the RFV now and if a veto appears, I will do #1. Was the impact on the libraries, applications and datafeed customers assessed? Its minimal, since the implementation was equally as minimal. We could go back just as easily. -- --ruaok Somewhere in Texas a village is *still* missing its idiot. Robert Kaye -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] --http://mayhem-chaos.net ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] RFC: New Artist Type: Project
On Thu, 13 Jul 2006, Robert Kaye wrote: I did not mean to circumvent the process here -- I do apologize. Please advise if I should: 1. reset the four artists to unknown and remove the project type from the live server or 2. don't sweat it and call it a done deal or 3. Have the RFV now and if a veto appears, I will do #1. Was the impact on the libraries, applications and datafeed customers assessed? If it hasn't been or if there is an impact, option 1 should be done. If no impact has been determined, I would go for option 3. Steve ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] RFC: New Artist Type: Project
On Jul 7, 2006, at 6:47 AM, joan WHITTAKER wrote: You already know my opinion on this, but to reiterate it, I definitely think that project should be added and as we have already discussed this at some length, then it should be taken to the Request for Veto stage. Ooops. We screwed the pooch. It turns out that the 'project' artist type was put up on test, but it was not removed before we did a release. Now we have four artists that have been marked as 'project'. :-( I did not mean to circumvent the process here -- I do apologize. Please advise if I should: 1. reset the four artists to unknown and remove the project type from the live server or 2. don't sweat it and call it a done deal or 3. Have the RFV now and if a veto appears, I will do #1. Sorry for the hassle. -- --ruaok Somewhere in Texas a village is *still* missing its idiot. Robert Kaye -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] --http://mayhem-chaos.net ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
