[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [wg-d] Draft Version 2
Bret --
The "clear statement" language looks good to me. (Contra Bill, I
think a "detailed overview" is an oxymoron. An "overview" is a
schematic; it doesn't incorporate detail.)
A couple more suggestions (tell me if it's just too late for these):
I might rework the first sentence of recommendation (1) so as to
introduce the concept of a "position statement" more clearly. To do so,
you might replace the words
a report with all the different views that have been presented in the
discussions
with
a report including "position statements" presenting the various views
reflected in the WG's discussion.
You might also insert, immediately following, a sentence reading
something like: "Each position statement must have at least two
signatories."
Finally, in recommendation (2), the second sentence should read "A
post limitation could have two beneficial effects," not "This could have
two beneficial effects," since the sentences that follow (describing the
"two beneficial effects") are specifically directed at the post
limitation option.
Jon
Jon Weinberg
weinberg@msen.com
Title: Re: [wg-d] Draft Version 2
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [wg-d] Draft Version 2
Jon Weinberg wrote:
> I believe Kent's intention, in suggesting an abstract, was that the
>abstract *replace* the detailed overview, rather than being added to
>it. (That's at least what I understood him to mean, and it seems a more
>sensible approach).
Yes, I had understood that sentence to be the "meat" of the proposal, and
you and Kent are correct that the word "overview" does not capture that
concept accurately. How about changing:
"(b) a detailed overview of the proposal;"
to
"(b) a clear statement of what is is being proposed and its underlying
rationale;"
-- Bret