No veto having been heard, and the RFV period having now expired, this proposal has now passed.
Thanks everyone, :) Brian On Sat, Mar 27, 2010 at 4:58 PM, Brian Schweitzer < [email protected]> wrote: > The minimum RFC period since this proposal was last modified has now > passed. > > For the record, the additional modification in RFC2 was to also add: > > "Most relationships do not begin with marriage. The period during which a > couple was dating should be indicated with this relationship > type<http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Category:Relationship_Type>. > That relationship > <http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Category:Relationship_Type>should then have an > end date set for the date of the marriage. The > relationship from that point on is then indicated using the Married > Relationship Type <http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Married_Relationship_Type>, > which will have a start date of the date of the marriage." > > as a guideline, to clarify the date fields between this AR and the Married > AR. > > This proposal is now in RFV; without veto, it will pass on 2010-03-29. > > Thanks, > Brian > > On Sat, Mar 20, 2010 at 10:08 AM, Brian Schweitzer < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> This is RFC-256. Assuming a seconder, and that debate has ended, it will >> move to RFV on 2010-03-27. >> >> There is currently an open question on the discussion page for the >> Involved With RT. This would simply add a guideline to that RT to clarify >> how that AR and the Married RT should be combined. >> >> Add to the guidelines for Involved With Relationship Type: >> >> * Marriage should not be represented with this [[:Category:Relationship >> Type|relationship type]]. It should instead be represented using the >> [[Married Relationship Type]]. >> >> Brian >> > >
_______________________________________________ Musicbrainz-style mailing list [email protected] http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
