Yeah, sorry though it would include the old thread :) http://bugs.musicbrainz.org/ticket/3558 http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Gecks/FeaturingArtistStyleAmendment
my amendment is - clarifying what we mean by 'featuring' which i think is current practice, and pretty much implied via the word "featuring" but in any case, it seems useful to get it down in writing. - gets rid of the collaboration guidelines which are in the wrong place anyway. if someone is 'featured' their contribution (equal to, greater than or less than the main artist) is irrelevant. - simplifying the thing as i don't think the SG5 stuff is current any more, and is available elsewhere should history interest you :) - shows that featuring artists can be context sensitive (now includes real world example) i am not interested in: - getting rid of FeaturingArtistStyle. as i said in the ticket: "IMO featuring artist style was created to solve the lack of ARs, but stayed post-AR to support featuring artist credits". it's here so we might as well make best use of it. - how this does/does not apply to the CSG. i think all CSG 'overrides' should be in the CSG docs rather than dotted around the normal ones, and in any case, that part's for the classical gurus to work out :) (after discussion i reintroduced the bit that mentions CSG in the old guideline, but it's for someone else to embellish on that if need be) 2008/6/3 Steve Wyles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > For those that haven't had the time to read all the previous discussion, > please summarise the changes that you are putting to RFV. > > Thanks. > > Steve > > On Tue, 3 Jun 2008, Chris B wrote: > >> Right, RFV time :) >> >> 2008/5/21 Olivier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >>> 2008/5/21 Chris B <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >>>> 2008/5/21 Olivier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >>>>> Summing things up: >>>>> - Chad has a point: Chris or Chad, can we have something to cover >>>>> this, maybe in the "Details" section? >>>> >>>> i don't really want to get involved in this one for this RFC. that >>>> issue ((feat. x) in group names) is a big one and i have concerns with >>>> it, so i don't want the relatively simple amendment getting bogged >>>> down. that actually goes for ANY additional failings of >>>> FeaturingArtistStyle that i've not covered/introduced :) >>>> >>>> eg, i included the CSG stuff from the accepted FeaturingArtistStyle >>>> but i'm not prepared to elaborate on that as that's not what my >>>> amendment concerns. i think one of the major failings of the style >>>> process is heaping additional changes on simple RFCs so that they >>>> snowball into major rewrites/lengthy discussions. >>>> >>> >>> Fair enough. >>> Chad? Is delaying this specific point for a later rework/discussion >>> good for you? >>> >>> Regards, >>> >>> - Olivier >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Musicbrainz-style mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Musicbrainz-style mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style >> > > _______________________________________________ > Musicbrainz-style mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style > _______________________________________________ Musicbrainz-style mailing list [email protected] http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
