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

On 05/12/2010 07:30 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
> 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?)

It certainly is OK to do so.

> What about if someone else already have objected for the same reason?
> It sounds like this is not ok?

I would discourage "+1"'s and "me too"'s.  I would encourage everyone to 
focus on presenting additional information.

> / Jonas

- Sam Ruby

Received on Wednesday, 12 May 2010 23:41:38 UTC