<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
Frederik Ramm wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:A6EF33EF-0786-4525-B41C-2A821A90D816@remote.org"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Hi,
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">* Some people started tagging *and rendering* crossings, using a
particular tagging scheme.
* Some other people, who weren't actually out doing the work, started
complaining about what was going on [1]
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
May I take this as a cue to suggest a complete overhaul of the whole
RfC/vote/etc. process.
My suggestion would be.
Rule 1:
We never debate anything that has no practical relevance. If you do
not have recorded the position of a shipwreck, then don't discuss how
one would tag shipwrecks if there were any (for example). In fact, if
you have no shipwrecks to tag and have never tagged any then it might
be a good idea to take a very low-key position in a discussion about
shipwreck tagging, if not to keep quiet altogehter.
Rule 2:
...
Rule 3:
...
Rule 4:
...</pre>
</blockquote>
Frederik,<br>
Since you are well known for not liking the voting system, maybe your
rule 1 excludes you from this debate?<br>
<br>
You forgot rules 5 and 6<br>
<br>
Rule 5:<br>
There are no rules.<br>
<br>
Rule 6:<br>
There is no rule 6. <br>
<br>
;-) Cheers, Chris<br>
</body>
</html>