I would like to once again suggest that we refocus this 'FAQ'
AWAY from a repetition of the "Principles and Procedures" document maintained
by WG2 and containing the explanation of what constitutes a valid *formal*
proposal.
AWAY from any attempt to cover *all* aspects that could make a proposal
inappropriate, and away from any schema for a complete classification of the
universe of possible proposals.
TOWARDS a set of a few -easily understood and not contentious- examples of
things that have been ruled out of bounds - with a clear pointer to the formal
document with its typology of scripts. (By all means, point prominently to the
roadmap as well).
Doing anything else will take a lot of work, both initially and in constantly
tweaking it; cause a lot of confusion (if it contains many items that are in
fact in a gray zone) and can weaken our understanding of which set of 'rules'
are the ones we really operate under.
A./
On Wed, 3 Jul 2002 23:24:01 +0100 Michael Everson <everson@evertype.com>
wrote:
I would NOT like to see our committees' hands tied by taking this
list as more than guidelines. I understand that it is for an FAQ but
there should be text therein to emphasize that these are not binding.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Wed Jul 03 2002 - 19:15:58 EDT