[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Rationale for GRs

Peter Samuelson <peter@p12n.org> writes:

> [Matthew Vernon]
> > I would like to propose, therefore, the requirement that anyone
> > proposing a GR be required to provide a short (no more than, say, 500
> > words) summary of why they believe the GR to be necessary. A similar
> > requirement would apply to those proposing an amendment.
> If the rationale is a required part of a GR, should it be treated as
> normative or informative?  In other words, if I agree with the text of
> a GR, but disagree with its posted rationale, am I supposed to vote for
> or against it?

Informative, I think. If you agree with the proposed motion, you
should vote for it, even if you think the rationale is incorrect.



"At least you know where you are with Microsoft."
"True. I just wish I'd brought a paddle."

Reply to: