On Wed, 2019-12-04 at 17:11:49 +0000, Ian Jackson wrote: > Thanks for this. No-one else has said anything. Having thought about > it, I think Guillem's framing would lead me to a conclusion closer to > Dmitry's E rather than my option D - but either is arguable.
As I mentioned in my “Reframing” reply, I think option E can be rather problematic, as I'm not really sure what it does imply, and it seems option D while trying to be very detailed ends up potentially not being exhaustive enough and feels too rigid at times. > To make it concrete I am going to post texts of those two options. If > people come forward to say they support or or both of them I will > formally propose them tomorrow morning (in the hope that the Secretary > and/or the DPL will allow them on the ballot). If you support either > of these options enough, then please formally propose it yourself and > I will second it tomorrow. > I do not intend either of these proposals to replace E or D, nor G. Hmm, I've not checked the actual differences between the combined and the individual options, but I have the feeling they would kind of devalue G, as it would seem like it's missing something. I acknowledge some people do believe it does miss something, but placed side-by-side in this way, makes it weird. I guess I'd then need to try to articulate the guidance and details (or lack thereof) in some explicit way to append to the end on an amendment. Thanks, Guillem
