Re: draft naming was RE: anti-harassment procedures

Keith Moore <moore@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> · Fri, 21 Feb 2014 16:57:40 -0500



    On 02/21/2014 04:51 PM, Dave Cridland
      wrote:

    
      On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 9:26 PM, Keith Moore <moore@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
        wrote:

        
            Agree.  
              We have too many piddly rules that serve little or no
              purpose already.    As long as neither the identifier nor
              the listed authors in the document are misleading, I don't
              see the need to impose further restrictions on them.
            

            I feel very strongly, and furthermore I think it's
              perfectly self evident - the form of a draft name, and the
              number of authors, and - most especially - the way in
              which these authors are listed is of vital importance, and
              there is no doubt in my mind whatsoever that I have
              something to say about it. It's key to note, as a matter
              of principle.

            
    Silly me, I think the draft should be evaluated based on its
    content, rather than on who claims to have written it.

    
    Keith