[mb-style] RFC: Works lists (and other related changes then implied)

[Chris B]

On 11/03/2008, Brian Schweitzer <brian.brianschweitzer at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 12:19 AM, David K. Gasaway <dave at gasaway.org> wrote:
>  > On 6 Mar 2008 at 0:27, Brian Schweitzer wrote:
>  >
>  >  > But
>  >  > what I think you're talking about I also addressed:
>  >  >
>  >  > "Now, so I'm not misunderstood, if we're dealing with a song like, say,
>  >  > In the Pines / Where Did You Sleep Last Night, where the song has
>  >  > evolved with every other artist who has recorded it, then yes, that
>  >  > quite likely ought to appear in many works lists, each of the two
>  >  > branches of development of that song linking together back through
>  >  > time."
>  >
>  >  Exactly.  The song could appear in multiple work lists.  I was simply
>  >  pointing out that if you *didn't* want a song in multiple work lists
>  >  (to avoid the duplication and branching - I don't recall off-hand who
>  >  expressed a concern about this), then there are the other two options I
>  >  listed.
>
>
> Sounds good.  :)
>
>  So we can get finished with this, and get back to the real classical
>  discussion, is there anyone who'd yet object to an RFV for works lists
>  (just so that concept has at least had one) and an RFV for the changes
>  / additions from this RFC?

is an RFV really appropriate at this point? I mean,  I wouldn't veto,
but it seems like all of this is still up in the air until the
functionality is here for us to play with :) what we're really
agreeing with here is a requirements document for worklists, rather
than a guidelines change.

likewise, a worklist-centric CSG couldn't be RFV'd as it wouldn't
supersede the existing guidelines until such time as worklists were
here, right?