[mb-style] RFV: Make Don't Make Relationship Clusters history, and no longer an official guideline

Brian Schweitzer brian.brianschweitzer at gmail.com
Mon Mar 29 20:10:39 UTC 2010


As promised, moving this to RFV.  Without veto, the proposal will pass on
2010-03-31.  For any considering a veto, I'd just ask that you reread the
below, and consider what this proposal is and is not actually proposing.  :)

Brian

On Sun, Mar 28, 2010 at 6:33 PM, Brian Schweitzer <
brian.brianschweitzer at gmail.com> wrote:

> This is just a heads up, so noone is caught by surprise.  :)
>
> This proposal's minimum RFC period was voluntarily extended by an extra
> week.  That 2 week period ends tomorrow.  When it does, I intend to move to
> RFV, as I see no other way this will have some progress made - there's been
> no discussion on this proposal in 4 days now, and the proposal itself
> increasingly seemed to just gather a lot of confusion and misrepresentation
> of what the proposal would do.
>
> I think the proposal has been useful in helping a lot of us to figure out
> what DMRC actually says, rather than what it was just kind of assumed to
> say.  However, the proposal itself has also been misrepresented in terms of
> what it would or would not do.  So to clarify:
>
> This proposal does:
> * Move DMRC to the History: namespace.
> * Make DMRC no longer an official guideline.
>
> This proposal does not:
> * Delete the page
>
> I would again leave open the request that if anyone sees any AR(s) which
> has a 'set of repeated ARs' type of issue, and currently does not have
> language to block it, let's get some language added to that AR(s) to block
> that.  But drafting/adding any such language to any such AR(s) also is left
> for a separate proposal, and is not part of this proposal as it stands now.
>
> Thanks,
> Brian
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 4:11 AM, Brian Schweitzer <
> brian.brianschweitzer at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> This is RFC-204.  Because I know this one's a lot of text to read, both
>> here and on the DMRC page, I'm voluntarily extending the initial RFV period
>> to 2 weeks, rather than the standard 1 week.  Therefore, the scheduled RFV
>> date is pushed back to 2010-03-29.
>>
>> Brian
>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.musicbrainz.org/pipermail/musicbrainz-style/attachments/20100329/e0727cd5/attachment.htm 


More information about the Musicbrainz-style mailing list