Earlier, I wrote:
>> I agree with the general content, but the sequencing, wording,
>> and spelling bugs kept piling up, then I got to:
>> "General Mailing List
>> This newsgroup is open to the public.
>> It is intended for discussions about cross-project"
>> ...and it was just too unpolished for my taste.
Then, Ted Leung wrote:
>Please don't send us back for a whole new vote, etc, over spelling
>and wording. I don't think we need a new vote to fix spelling and
>correct 'newsgroup' to 'mailing list'.
My objections to the cited passage were two: newsgroup vs. mailing
list as you noted, but also that the sentence is incomplete and I
don't know how you intended to finish it. If it's any sign of
optimism, let me repeat that the above was the "low point" of the
whole document. I found numerous problems of lesser severity.
I don't think the document should be published as-is. If it's
possible to vote +1 on content and -1 on presentation, then that's
what I'll do. If we fix it now, can the same vote still apply?
Ted seems to be answering "yes" to that question. I'm just looking
for assurance that the charter won't become our public document of
our activity until it has been cleaned up.
.................David Marston
---------------------------------------------------------------------
In case of troubles, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
