On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 5:56 PM, Kirk Hall <[email protected]> wrote:
> While I still disagree with your personal interpretation – why can’t we do > things the way other deliberative bodies do? – as I said before, I have no > problem including “Notes” at the end of provisions that are not part of the > BRs, but which inform readers of what the transition rules for a particular > ballot are. The notes can then be dropped once they are no longer > relevant. > You're again inventing a new process that is inconsistent with how we've handled every other ballot, and introduces unnecessary ambiguity. I would hope Jeremy would see how inadvisible this suggestion is. To save trouble - We would vote No against the process you've described. Would you vote No if we handled it like every other ballot? > So we can include Section 2 of Ballot 190 as a “Note” after BR 3.2.2.4, > which is the section affected by the transition rule, then remove it once > the transition period is over – everyone will see that in the compiled > version of the updated BRs. Sounds like a solution we can all live with. > Unfortunately, it seems you continue to misunderstand the concerns, and I'm not sure I can sufficiently explain them to you. Jeremy tends to understand these issues, so I'm sure he would have no problem addressing these concerns in a way that meaningfully work.
_______________________________________________ Public mailing list [email protected] https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public
