Re: Last minute cominbations G+D and/or G+E
On Thu, 2019-12-05 at 10:53:33 +0000, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Guillem Jover writes ("Re: Last minute cominbations G+D and/or G+E"):
> > On Wed, 2019-12-04 at 17:11:49 +0000, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > > I do not intend either of these proposals to replace E or D, nor G.
> >
> > Hmm, I've not checked the actual differences between the combined and
> > the individual options, but I have the feeling they would kind of
> > devalue G, as it would seem like it's missing something.
>
> 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.
> > 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. :/
Thanks,
Guillem
Reply to: