Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > That's up to you. Whatever grandfathering procedure you come up with, > you've got to sell it to the rest of the Project.
But it seems even more efficient to just oppose your proposal. Why shouldn't I just do that? I mean, if you want me to sign on as an ally, then you need to address the things that are important to me, and so far, you have shown very little willingness to do that. > You have an unhealthy obsession with my personal opinion. I endeavored > to make my proposal as neutral and to-the-point as possible. To the > extent that I succeeded, my personal opinions are irrelevant. The > proposal is the proposal and means what it says. It doesn't mean > anything it doesn't say. And there are a great many things it doesn't > contain, such as editorializing on my part. I want a proposal that *at once* outlines both the guidelines, and whatever system there is for allowing exceptions. A proposal that does only the first part of that is worse than no guidelines at all. Telling me "this is a great proposal, and we'll figure out the other parts later" is just no good. I want to see the way the whole thing will work; not just part of it.
