Re: on the "M" of "NM"
On 10/05/2011 10:45 PM, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 05, 2011 at 10:21:06PM +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
>
>> In this case, I'll have to voice my concern again that I really fear
>> that it's going to be even more confusing if we change the words
>> behind the abbreviation only (nobody will know about this change if
>> we don't advertize it enough).
>>
> No, you don't have to: repeating argument is not useful in a discussion,
> unless you add new evidence.
>
I agreed with everyone about improving what we can until we find a
better option. But since I had the impression that you didn't feel like
changing things further should happen, I'm then withdrawing my
approval, because I think it's still not satisfying, and potentially may
bring even more confusion. Ok, let's make it better *now* if we can,
but please don't close the door to further improvement.
>> Also, I don't get why you are writing that changing names for DD/DM
>> will deserve a GR and constitution review, when changing from NM to
>>
> I didn't write that.
>
> [ and this is likely my last post in this sub-thread, unless new
> evidence/arguments appear ]
>
I must have misinterpreted then, sorry. Let's make it clear then.
Do you think we would need a GR to change only the names like
in my proposal, to make them less confusing, while still keeping
the definitions we already have? Is "NM" part of the Constitution,
but not the words behind the acronyms (that feels weird to me...)?
Finally, a question not only for Zack: do you like my new names,
and do you think it will it help with more clarity?
Cheers,
Thomas
P.S: I'm for a change of names, because they are confusing,
but not really for the heavy bureaucracy of a GR if it can
be avoided.
Reply to: