Last minute cominbations G+D and/or G+E
gregor herrmann writes ("Re: Reframing"):
> I found and find Guillem's text very appealing; and I also can see
> that people who are involved in the issue on the technical or the
> policy side would like to have concrete answers to the pending
> questions and guidance for moving forward. For the latter I think
> that your proposal is a good approach as it tries to spell out the
> compromise in concrete actions.
>
> So yes, for me a combination of options G and D would be (or maybe
> more accurately: would have been ) helpful in finalizing my ranking
> of the options given my ambivalence.
Thanks for this. No-one else has said anything. Having thought about
it, I think Guillem's framing would lead me to a conclusion closer to
Dmitry's E rather than my option D - but either is arguable.
To make it concrete I am going to post texts of those two options. If
people come forward to say they support or or both of them I will
formally propose them tomorrow morning (in the hope that the Secretary
and/or the DPL will allow them on the ballot). If you support either
of these options enough, then please formally propose it yourself and
I will second it tomorrow.
If no-one else says they are in favour then I will drop this line of
enquiry entirely (and consequently drop my attempt to force a delay).
I do not intend either of these proposals to replace E or D, nor G.
I have been avoiding reading these threads in the evening because it
is bad for my sleep. So I won't see whatever followups are posted
until mid-morning tomorrow UK time.
Ian.
--
Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> These opinions are my own.
If I emailed you from an address @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk, that is
a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.
Reply to: