[Foundation-l] Clarification to existing resolutions
Anthere9 at yahoo.com
Wed May 16 20:10:48 UTC 2007
Erik Moeller wrote:
> On 5/16/07, Florence Devouard <Anthere9 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Purely practical issue.
>> I'd prefer to do a Resolution:Licensing policy2 and Resolution:Access to
>> nonpublic data2.
>> It makes it easier to immediately see there is a more recent version.
>> Whilst few people can *guess* there is somewhere a resolution updating
>> the policy.
>> Just pick up the previous resolution, and put an addendum at the bottom.
>> What do you think ?
> We can just transclude or link the amendment resolution at the bottom
> of the original one with a prominent notice that it has been updated.
I do not think it is practical.
Right now, we have a common resolution to fix several unrelated points.
I do not think it is such a good idea to do it this way, as some people
might agree with one point, disagree with another. Then might vote
against even though they might agree with some points.
Generally, I think we should always stick to one resolution <-> one topic.
Second reason is that when we want to refer to a resolution, it is much
easier to go to the resolution page, and simply copy paste the text. If
we copy paste the text, then have to go to one, maybe two, one day three
perhaps, updates, and insert the modifications accordingly in relevant
paragraph, this is a time loss and a risk for mistakes. I would rather
prefer a brand new resolution, refering to an old one, and canceling the
old one. On the old one, we can link to the new one and mention the old
is no more valid.
Or... another solution (probably better) would be to separate the text
of the resolution from the page of the policy itself. The resolution
point to a specific version of the policy. The second update resolution
simply points to a new version of the policy. In such case, the policy
page is always updated and there is no risk of confusion.
More information about the foundation-l