Daniel Drake wrote: > Is the above correct? AFAIK, yes.
Daniel Drake wrote: > I can understand that the system may have been dreamed up with this in > mind, and this certainly isn't an unreasonable design, but I don't see > the corresponding text in the GLEP. Which does not seem to be a problem to Ciaran McCreesh as he stated > So you're saying that you're attempting to use wording technicalities > to prevent an improvement to the user experience? (earlier this day, 00:38:39) > Mike already suggested that we set some news standards. I think we > should go further: after discussion if we do decide this kind of article > is valid news, then we should carefully reword some parts of the GLEP > and maybe even rename it. Adding a few examples of valid and invalid > items (plus explanations why) would be beneficial as well. Different forms of spreading news may never overlap, as this would cause arguments for no reason. For problems which are as easy to fix as this one, we got other ways of spread the news already. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
