From: David Barr (barr@visi.com)
Date: Tue Apr 17 2001 - 16:06:22 CDT
Charles Lindsey wrote:
> In <Pine.LNX.4.10.10104121507340.2239-100000@spock.peak.org> John Stanley <stanley@peak.org> writes:
>
> I think it is up to our chairman to say to what extent we should be
> revisiting issues that we debated and decided one or two years ago. OTOH,
> small imporovements to wording can always be considered where they are
> non-controversial.
I think it's fine to cut language which is controvertial or wrong.
I don't mind very limited debate to identify such language and gain
consensus that it should be cut.
What I don't want to see is attempts to ADD language, or significantly
change existing language (meaning change of scope is bad, but
reduction in scope is good).
--Dave