Re: Chair review of the issue-200 legend-placement change proposals

Thank you for the feedback, Sam.
I've updated my proposal according to it.

17.04.2012, 16:10, "Sam Ruby" <>:
> Change Proposals:
> * Allow:
> * Keep:
> The Allow proposal has sufficient rationale, but the details section is
> deficient in that it proposes multiple options and does not propose them
> as a set of edit instructions, specific enough that they can be applied
> without ambiguity[1]. In particular, the existing Details section uses
> terms like "could be" and "Another acceptable (and probably even better)
> option".
> All Rationale and use case information needs to be moved out of the
> Details section. What should remain should constitute a single
> proposal. Should there be a desire to submit multiple proposals, that
> can be discussed, though the clear preference of the co-chairs would be
> to have a single proposal.
> Until this feedback is addressed, the Allow proposal is not accepted.
> In addition, the rationale section of the Allow proposal is deficient as
> written. It just states some facts, but does not relate them to a reason
> for allowing the construct. The first sentence of the Summary section
> does provide a plausible reason, so perhaps that should be included in
> Rationale.
> The Rationale could also be strengthened by providing use cases.
> The Keep proposal is acceptable as is, but could benefit by addressing
> the feedback that has already been provided on list[2].
> - Sam Ruby
> [1]
> [2]

Received on Sunday, 22 April 2012 16:42:40 UTC