Op di, 15-11-2005 te 02:05 -0800, schreef Steve Langasek: > On Tue, Nov 15, 2005 at 09:52:02AM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > > Perhaps a sensible compromise between your position and Anthony's could > > be to propose that requests of authors be honoured unless a compelling > > reason to the contrary is presented and explained, yada yada. But I'm > > not going to push it that far that I'll propose a second amendment to > > that effect. > > Surely it would be better anyway to just pass a second GR if the occasion > arises, than to employ complex and bug-prone heuristics for "compelling > reasons". True; the fact that it's going to be very hard to correctly define the details of a hypothetical case like this beforehand is actually the main reason I'm not willing to push that as an amendment. -- .../ -/ ---/ .--./ / .--/ .-/ .../ -/ ../ -./ --./ / -.--/ ---/ ..-/ .-./ / -/ ../ --/ ./ / .--/ ../ -/ ..../ / -../ ./ -.-./ ---/ -../ ../ -./ --./ / --/ -.--/ / .../ ../ --./ -./ .-/ -/ ..-/ .-./ ./ .-.-.-/ / --/ ---/ .-./ .../ ./ / ../ .../ / ---/ ..-/ -/ -../ .-/ -/ ./ -../ / -/ ./ -.-./ ..../ -./ ---/ .-../ ---/ --./ -.--/ / .-/ -./ -.--/ .--/ .-/ -.--/ .-.-.-/ / ...-.-/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part