Re: Last minute cominbations G+D and/or G+E
Guillem Jover writes ("Re: Last minute cominbations G+D and/or G+E"):
> On Thu, 2019-12-05 at 10:53:33 +0000, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > That is an unfortunate effect, yes. I mean, my opinion is (as you
> > know) that G _is_ missing something. But it would be much better if
> > you as the proposer of the original G could explain in it why you
> > think more guidance is not appropriate.
>
> Just to clarify, and to avoid any possible reading of subtext
> implying I'm unhappy with the combination in the new proposal:
>
> With the new proposed options, this seems to set a different context
> where I consider the omission in option G to be a bug, yes. Before I
> guess it could have perhaps be understood relative to the other options,
> even if probably having made it explicit (which I actually considered,
> but was not sure how to do) would have made it easier to understand too.
Right.
> > > I acknowledge
> > > some people do believe it does miss something, but placed side-by-side
> > > in this way, makes it weird. I guess I'd then need to try to articulate
> > > the guidance and details (or lack thereof) in some explicit way to
> > > append to the end on an amendment.
> >
> > Yes. I have no idea how long you have to do this.
>
> I already started yesterday to try to structure and organize my
> thoughts on how I'd express this. I do have today packed until later
> this evening, so I think it's unrealisting that I can propose anything
> today. I hope to have something by tomorrow, but maybe only by late
> European night time. :/
I suspect that will be too late :-(. Good luck.
It is very unfortunate that these tight deadlines mean we are all
having to reorganise our lives, drop other work, and so on, in order
to rush things out - or risk missing out on a proper chance to
influence a decision many of us feel passionately about.
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: