Several people on the talk page have done exactly that recently, calling for
conclusion
and ratification, because both discussion and formulation seemed to have had
long been
accepted by everyone working on it (and you were one of the people who
contributed).
If you felt it was inadequate, you should have replied.
If more discussion was needed, and if there are discussions which you feel have
not
been closed, then you should have replied there that ratification, in your
opinion,
should not proceed because of those issues.
The community was called on to work on a draft. The call was made publicly and
an excellent draft was produced by a number of talented and knowledgeable people
with backgrounds and experience in various aspects of linguistics. The "issues"
you
raise were all discussed adequately, and the draft reflects the majority view
from those
discussions.
The current draft, I thought, was something that everyone could live with,
reflecting real
compromises on a few issues that had been discussed. Quite frankly, given your
silence
to the calls for closing, I though that was your opinion too.
If more community members want to discuss and refine the draft further that can
still
of course be done, but there needs to be *some* method of finally closing the
draft and
ratifying it once those working on it feel that it is done and it starts to
stagnate.
Otherwise, there is no meaning at all to a community draft.
Have a good weekend,
Dovi
I have raised similar issues on the talk page before. Had you asked if
there were further comments on the talk page rather than here, I would
have responded there.
--
Yours cordially,
Jesse Plamondon-Willard (Pathoschild)
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[email protected]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
