Re: ISSUE-90 - Removing the figure Element - Straw Poll for Objections

On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 4:21 PM, Sam Ruby <> wrote:
> On 05/12/2010 07:02 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
>> On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 3:34 PM, Maciej Stachowiak<>  wrote:
>>> If you would feel you can add information by stating an objection in the
>>> context of the poll, then feel free to do so. Obviously, there is nothing
>>> wrong with agreeing with yourself.
>> So, given that I strongly agree with the CP I participated in, and
>> strongly disagree with the other, but I think all the relevant
>> arguments in the one I disagree with are answered in the one I helped
>> write, is there any reason for me to respond in any way?
>> (I had assumed no.)
> A change proposal is only required to have a summary, rationale, proposal
> details, and impact.  Note that there is no specific requirement that a
> change proposal contains any objections.
> At this point, we are specifically looking for objections.  We are merely
> doing that for completeness.  If you believe that your objections are
> accurately and completely described by one of the change proposals, there is
> no need to reply further.
> If, however, you have anything to add in terms of an objection, now would be
> a good time to indicate what your objection might be.

Tab describes my question in a much less verbose and confusing way.

So if I do object to Shelley's proposals, and the reason for this is
that I want the positive aspects described by the "Keep elements"
change proposal, is it ok to state so? I.e. the change proposal
doesn't actually formulate any objections, just states positive
effects of keeping them.

It sounds like this would be ok (or even encouraged?)

What about if someone else already have objected for the same reason?

It sounds like this is not ok?

/ Jonas

Received on Wednesday, 12 May 2010 23:31:26 UTC