I would like to once again suggest that we refocus this 'FAQ' AWAY from a repetition of the "Principles and Procedures" document maintained by WG2 and containing the explanation of what constitutes a valid *formal* proposal.
AWAY from any attempt to cover *all* aspects that could make a proposal inappropriate, and away from any schema for a complete classification of the universe of possible proposals. TOWARDS a set of a few -easily understood and not contentious- examples of things that have been ruled out of bounds - with a clear pointer to the formal document with its typology of scripts. (By all means, point prominently to the roadmap as well). Doing anything else will take a lot of work, both initially and in constantly tweaking it; cause a lot of confusion (if it contains many items that are in fact in a gray zone) and can weaken our understanding of which set of 'rules' are the ones we really operate under. A./ On Wed, 3 Jul 2002 23:24:01 +0100 Michael Everson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I would NOT like to see our committees' hands tied by taking this list as more than guidelines. I understand that it is for an FAQ but there should be text therein to emphasize that these are not binding.
