Thanks for the clarification. On 3 March 2011 19:45, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net> wrote: > On 03/02/2011 06:36 PM, Danny Ayers wrote: >> >> 's/support/vehement support' > > At first I thought this was a joke and thought I would let it pass, but now > it is apparent that it is a genuine misunderstanding: > > http://twitter.com/danja/status/43246636461338624 > > To be clear: saying you support something is not an objection. Saying that > you vehemently support something doesn't make it an objection. > > At some point in the future there will likely be a survey on this issue. At > that point you will be presented with the opportunity to state your > objections to either proposal. Statements at such time indicating support > for a proposal will be ignored. What we will be looking for is objections. > There will be no need to contribute to the survey if you feel that your > objection has already been adequately expressed by others, either on the > survey or in the change proposal you support. But if you have anything to > add that you don't feel has been adequately expressed by either already, > that would be the time to do so. If you are not sure, go ahead and express > it anyway as long as it is your own words and not merely repeating > sentiments that were already expressed. > > I hope this helps. Cheers, Danny. -- http://danny.ayers.nameReceived on Friday, 4 March 2011 00:15:22 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Saturday, 9 October 2021 18:45:33 UTC