Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Why does that matter? I am only one voice. > > I wrote my proposal in such a way as to attempt to be completely neutral > about whether grandfathering might take place, or what might be > grandfathered. > > If you find any indications of bias in it on the issue of > grandfathering, please let me know so I can make appropriate revisions.
See, here's the problem. You make a proposal with very hard bright-line tests. When people say "that's too strict, what about special cases", you say "oh, these are just *guidelines*; we can still grandfather things or make special cases". But then you refuse to say how any of that will work. What I'm afraid of is that your talk about grandfathering and special exceptions is just so much noise designed to distract from an important objection to your proposal. If it's not noise, then please--give some content to it! I'm afraid that if we agree to such a proposal with no explicit thoughts about grandfathering and exception-making, then some people (probably including you) will begin objecting to each and every proposed exception and grandfathering, in the name of "the agreed guidelines". What can you say to tell me that won't happen? You aren't willing to point to any existing manual and say "I would support grandfathering that one"; you aren't willing to say "this is the kind of exception-granting process I would be happy with". Thomas
