From: "Daniel Ehrenberg" littledanehren@yahoo.com
--- Rick giantsrick13@yahoo.com wrote:
I strongly oppose 2b. I don't see that that's particularly useful.
RickK
I agree. Often, the opinions you have have already been written and it would be pointless to repeat them. LDan
Here. Here. (or Hear, hear!)
It appears that 2 b) would be hard to enforce: what is an edit? If someone adds or subtracts a simple sentence? Or is a word or typo correction enough. If it is a content edit, who determines what relevant content might be? It seems this opens the door to the slippery slope that Angela mentions i.e. the policy will be open to interpretation and we'll be back discussing who decides what an edit is or is not and not dealing with the real issue. A streamlined process that clears out useless clutter is what is needed, not a Consitutional Convention dealing with the meaning of every possible way of reaching some kind of agreement on relatively uncontroversial deletions. The process should not be hijackable (is that a word?) by anyone who comes along with some kind of weird, idiosyncratic complaint about the process.
Alex756