[Foundation-l] Meta-arbcom (was: the foundations of...)

[effe iets anders]

Imho, if you want something not to succeed, there is a very easy way:
pinn yourself down on the details. The details will follow from the
big lines, and if there are no big lines yet, it is not veyr useful to
start with the details. And the "mere"  was compared with the main
question imho, at which I hear nothing almost, what exactly the
purpose would be.

BR, lodewijk

2008/1/5, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton op gmail.com>:
> On 05/01/2008, effe iets anders <effeietsanders op gmail.com> wrote:
> > Guys, please,
> >
> > The language is just a mere practical matter. Please let's first come
> > to the conclusion what the *purpose* would be of this meta-arbcom
> > *before* we even start with discussing issues like this. i know it is
> > very easy to get into details, but let's remain focussed. Does anyone
> > have a good proposal for which topics the arbcom should be used and
> > what type of members we would need?
>
> It's a practical matter, but I don't think it's a "mere" one. It is a
> very important issue that needs to be resolved. What kind of cases the
> committee will consider is also an important issue, but there's no
> reason we can't discuss them both.
>